TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA CASINO RELOCATION …1.0 Introduction May 2018 1-2 Table Mountain Rancheria...

MAY 2018Revised September 2018

LEAD AGENCY:

Table Mountain Rancheria23736 Sky Harbour Road

Friant, CA 93626

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIACASINO RELOCATION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIACASINO RELOCATION PROJECT

MAY 2018Revised September 2018

LEAD AGENCY:

Table Mountain Rancheria23736 Sky Harbour Road

Friant, CA 93626

PREPARED BY:

Analytical Environmental Services1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811www.analyticalcorp.com

May 2018 i Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Revised September 2018 Environmental Evaluation

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA CASINO RELOCATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Table Mountain Rancheria ................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.2 Table Mountain Casino ........................................................................................ 1-2

1.2.3 Local Contributions .............................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................. 1-2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Setting and Existing Facilities ............................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.2.1 New Casino-Hotel ................................................................................................ 2-6

2.2.2 Site Access ........................................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.3 Parking ................................................................................................................. 2-8

2.2.4 Water Supply ........................................................................................................ 2-8

2.2.5 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal .................................................................. 2-11

2.2.6 Gas and Electricity ............................................................................................. 2-11

2.2.7 Stormwater/Drainage .......................................................................................... 2-13

2.2.8 Construction ....................................................................................................... 2-14

2.2.9 Best Management Practices ................................................................................ 2-15

2.2.10 Renovation of Existing Casino for Tribal Governmental Uses .......................... 2-16

2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration ................................................................... 2-16

3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Cumulative Setting ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Existing Environment ......................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 3-5

3.2.3 Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.1 Existing Environment ......................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 3-14

3.3.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-18

3.4 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 3-19

3.4.1 Existing Environment ....................................................................................... 3-19


Table of Contents

May 2018 ii Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Revised September 2018 Environmental Evaluation

3.4.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-21

3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 3-22



3.5.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-27

3.6 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-27



3.6.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-36

3.7 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 3-37



3.7.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-48

3.8 Public Services ................................................................................................................ 3-48



3.8.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-51

3.9 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 3-51



3.9.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-65

3.10 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 3-67



3.10.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-70

3.11 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................... 3-70



3.11.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 3-72

3.12 Indirect Impacts of Mitigation ......................................................................................... 3-72

3.12.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 3-74

3.12.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 3-74

3.12.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 3-75

3.12.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................... 3-75

3.12.5 Noise ................................................................................................................. 3-76

3.12.6 Public Services and Utilities ............................................................................. 3-76

3.12.7 Transportation ................................................................................................... 3-76

3.12.8 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................ 3-77

3.12.9 Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 3-77

3.12.10 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 3-77

4.0 REPORT PREPARATION........................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Environmental Evaluation Consultants ............................................................................. 4-1

Table of Contents

May 2018 iii Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Revised September 2018 Environmental Evaluation

5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 5-1

LIST OF TABLES

2-1 Proposed Project Program ............................................................................................................. 2-6

2-2 Proposed Project Increase in Water Demand and Wastewater Generation ................................ 2-10

3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................................................... 3-9

3-2 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance ....................................................................................... 3-10

3-3 NAAQS Attainment Status for SJVAB ...................................................................................... 3-11

3-4 Air Quality Monitoring Data ...................................................................................................... 3-12

3-5 Tribal Minor New Source Review Thresholds ........................................................................... 3-13

3-6 Unmitigated Construction Emissions ......................................................................................... 3-15

3-7 Mitigated Construction Emissions .............................................................................................. 3-16

3-8 Unmitigated Operational Emissions ........................................................................................... 3-17

3-9 Project Site Soils ......................................................................................................................... 3-20

3-10 Project-Related GHG Emissions ................................................................................................. 3-27

3-11 Federal Construction Noise Thresholds ...................................................................................... 3-39

3-12 Federal Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level Decibels ......................... 3-39

3-13 Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure ........................................................... 3-40

3-14 Fresno County Exterior and Interior Noise Level Thresholds .................................................... 3-40

3-15 Summary of 24-Hour and 15-Minute Noise Level Measurements ............................................. 3-41

3-16 Proposed Project Road Segment Traffic Volume and Noise Level Changes ............................. 3-45

3-17 Cumulative Year Road Segment Traffic Volume and Noise Level Changes ............................. 3-47

3-18 Existing Intersection Level of Service ........................................................................................ 3-54

3-19 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................................................................. 3-55

3-20 Trip Generation Summary .......................................................................................................... 3-57

3-21 Trip Generation Summary During Special Events ..................................................................... 3-57

3-22 Intersection Level of Service ...................................................................................................... 3-60

3-23 Roadway Segment Level of Service ........................................................................................... 3-62

3-24 Proposed Traffic Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 3-66

3-25 Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation ..................................................................................... 3-68

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Location .................................................................................................................. 1-4

Figure 2 Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................................................... 1-5

Figure 3 Aerial Photograph................................................................................................................... 1-6

Figure 4 Site Plan .................................................................................................................................. 2-3

Figure 5a Architectural Rendering ......................................................................................................... 2-4

Figure 5b Architectural Rendering ......................................................................................................... 2-5

Figure 6 Proposed Water System Improvements.................................................................................. 2-9

Figure 7 Proposed Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements............................................................. 2-12

Figure 8 Site Photographs ..................................................................................................................... 3-4

Table of Contents

May 2018 iv Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Revised September 2018 Environmental Evaluation

Figure 9 Watershed Map..................................................................................................................... 3-29

Figure 10 Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................................. 3-42

APPENDICES

Appendix A Off-Reservation Environmental Impact Analysis Checklist

Appendix B Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study

Appendix C Preliminary Drainage Study

Appendix D Revised Traffic Impact Study

Appendix E Air Quality Input and Output Files

Appendix F Noise Measurement Files

1.0 INTRODUCTION

May 2018 1-1 Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Revised September 2018 Environmental Evaluation

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Table Mountain Rancheria (Tribe) is considering the relocation of the existing Table Mountain

Casino to an alternative location within its federally-designated tribal trust lands in Fresno County,

California. As described in detail in Section 2.0 of this Environmental Evaluation (EE), the new casino

would include approximately 110,000 square feet (sf) of gaming floor, a 151-room hotel, restaurants, a

gift shop, a child care center, special event venue, banquet and meeting space, and related amenities

(Proposed Project). The existing Table Mountain Casino would be closed and the facilities converted into

tribal governmental uses, such as administrative offices or tribal services, following construction of the

Proposed Project.

Section 10.8 of the Tribal-State Gaming Compact requires tribes to adopt an environmental ordinance and

prepare an environmental study prior to commencement of construction or expansion of a gaming facility

(casino) on tribal lands. According to the Tribal-State Gaming Compact, the Tribe shall:

“Make a good faith effort to incorporate the policies and purposes of the National Environmental

Policy Act [NEPA] and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] consistent with the

Tribe’s governmental interests.”

“Consult” with local jurisdictions (cities and counties) and, if requested, “meet with them to

discuss mitigation of significant adverse off-Reservation environmental impacts.”

Make “good faith” efforts to mitigate off-Reservation impacts.

This EE has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section 10.8 of the 1999 Tribal-State Gaming

Compact and the Tribe’s Environmental Protection Ordinance (No. 2017-13), which addresses off-

Reservation environmental impacts. The Tribe will use this EE to determine if the Proposed Project

would result in significant off-Reservation impacts to the environment. The scope of this EE has been

focused via the preparation of an Off-Reservation Environmental Impact Analysis Checklist (Checklist;

Appendix A). The Checklist provides an initial assessment of the potentially significant off-Reservation

environmental impacts, and determines which, if any, environmental issues merit further analysis.

Potentially significant impacts identified in the Checklist have been evaluated in detail in Section 3.0 of

this EE.

1.2 BACKGROUND

1.2.1 TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA

The Table Mountain Rancheria (Rancheria) was established in 1916 along Millerton Road in Fresno

County, approximately 6.5 miles northeast of center of the City of Fresno, and 2.5 miles east of the town

of Friant, California. The original Rancheria (also referred to as the Tribe’s Reservation throughout this

1.0 Introduction


EE) consisted of 116.76 acres. In 1959 the Tribe’s federal recognition was terminated by the U.S.

government through enactment of the California Rancheria Act of 1958. It was not until December 1983

that the Tribe regained its tribal status, as documented by the publication of a notice in the Federal

Register by the Secretary of Interior pursuant to 25 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §83.7.

Approximately 57.8 acres of the initial 116.76-acre original Reservation was returned to trust status at

that time. Since then, the Tribe has expanded the Reservation to encompass approximately 567.3 acres

held in trust.

1.2.2 TABLE MOUNTAIN CASINO

The existing Table Mountain Casino is located within the south-central portion of the Reservation. The

Tribe has been operating the Table Mountain Casino on its current site since 1987, pursuant to the Indian

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Figures 1 and 2 show the location of the Reservation, the existing

Table Mountain Casino and project site under consideration for relocation of the casino. The proposed

casino relocation site and surrounding land located within the Reservation west of Sky Harbor Road and

east of Winchell Cove Road consists of 238 acres (this area is referred to as the project site throughout

this EE). This portion of the Reservation was brought into federal trust through two separate land

transactions. In a letter dated January 10, 2014, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC)

confirmed that the 60 acres within the eastern portion of the project site that is adjacent to the original

Reservation is eligible for gaming pursuant to IGRA, 25 United States Code (USC) §2719[a][1]. Figure

3 provides an aerial photograph of the existing Table Mountain Casino and project site.

1.2.3 LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS

The Tribe has numerous partnerships with local agencies and groups, and regularly contributes charitable

donations towards local fire, law enforcement and education facilities. For example, the Tribe currently

voluntarily funds the year-round operation and staffing of the Millerton Fire Station and has recently

signed another two-year agreement with CAL FIRE to fund the station year-round. Additionally, the

Tribe has contributed to numerous public infrastructure improvement projects in the vicinity of the

Reservation, including, but not limited to, funding the design and construction of water supply

infrastructure projects for Fresno County Service Area No. 34 (CSA 34) and funding the design and

environmental permitting to widen and improve Millerton Road.

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Implementation of the Proposed Project would assist the Tribe in meeting the following project

objectives:

Improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that

could be used to:

o strengthen the tribal government,

o provide new tribal housing,

o fund a variety of social, governmental, administrative, educational, health and welfare

services to improve the quality of life of tribal members, and

o provide capital for other economic development and investment opportunities;

1.0 Introduction


Relieve overcrowded conditions at the existing gaming facility;

Improve infrastructure and support facilities at the Rancheria;

Provide additional recreational amenities to the community and out-of-town guests;

Allow tribal members to maintain their economic self-sufficiency;

Create new jobs for tribal members and non-tribal members; and

Reduce visitor trips on local roadways by providing overnight accommodations.

Fresno County

Madera County

Rancheria / Reservation

Fresno County

Madera County

Figure 1Regional Location

SOURCE: NatGeo, 2017; AES, 4/26/2018

New Site

Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Environmental Evaluation / 214514

Fresno County

SCALE

0 2 4

Miles

Sky H

arbou

r Rd

Millerton Rd

Winc

hell C

oveR

d

M I L L E R T O NL A K E


Existing TableMountain Casino

Figure 2Site and Vicinity

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial photograph, 8/7/2017; AES, 5/22/2018 Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Environmental Evaluation / 214514

Rancheria / ReservationDevelopment FootprintExisting Table Mountain Casino

TRIBAL PARCELSIndividual Fee LandProperty Held In Trust (Allotment)Property Held In Trust (Tribal)

LEGEND

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

M I L L E R T O NL A K E

Millerton Rd

SkyHarbourRd

Winchel

l Cov

e Rd

Table Mountain Rd

Figure 3Aerial Photograph

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial photograph, 8/7/2017; AES, 5/8/2018


0 500 1,000

Feet

LEGEND

Rancheria / ReservationDevelopment FootprintProject SiteExisting Table Mountain Casino60 Acres – Gaming EligibleGaming Floor/Bingo Hall

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION


SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT SETTING AND EXISTING FACILITIES

The project site consists of 238 acres of land currently held in federal trust for the Tribe located within the

western portion of the Tribe’s Rancheria in the unincorporated area of Fresno County, California,

approximately 6.5 miles northeast of center of the City of Fresno and 2.5 miles east of the town of Friant.

Millerton Lake is located less than 1.0 mile north of the project site. The regional location of the

Reservation is shown in Figures 1 and 2, and an aerial map showing the project site and surrounding

vicinity is provided as Figure 3. The project site is located directly north of Millerton Road, east of

Winchell Cove Road, and west of Sky Harbour Road. Winchell Cove Road extends north from Millerton

Road and terminates at a dock on Millerton Lake. Surrounding land use consists primarily of non-native

grassland habitat utilized for cattle grazing, rural residential development, and recreational uses.

Millerton State Park is located to the north, the Eagle Springs Golf Course and Country Club with

residential lots is located to the south, and developed land uses within the Reservation are located to the

east, including the existing Table Mountain Casino, rural residential housing, tribal administrative offices,

medical and dental buildings, a youth center, and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Land uses in the

western portion of the site include a water treatment plant (WTP), water storage tanks, groundwater wells,

a warehouse, and a previously excavated quarry area. The eastern 60 acres of the project site includes a

water storage tank in the northeastern corner, a dirt lot for parking, the Tribe’s Pow Wow grounds, and a

pump house in the southeastern corner. Vegetation within the site consists of non-native annual

grasslands with oak trees dispersed throughout. An ephemeral drainage runs from north to south across

the central portion of the site.

The existing Table Mountain Casino, which is owned and managed by the Tribe, currently has 1,000

existing employees and serves approximately 6,800 patrons per day. The facility consists of a one-story

main structure, which contains gaming areas, restaurants, retail areas, administrative offices, and general

circulation space. The gaming floor encompasses approximately 59,700 square feet (sf) of the 234,000-sf

building. On-site parking includes an 8-level parking structure with approximately 875 spaces as well as

approximately 418 paved surface parking spaces. The existing Table Mountain Casino has a bingo hall

that hosts bingo 5 days per week and also serves as a special events center for monthly concerts, banquets,

and special private events. The existing facility can provide 1,200 seats for concerts, 696 seats for bingo,

and 600 seats for special diners. The existing maximum occupancy is 1,800 for concerts, 1,145 for bingo,

and 840 for special diners. Ingress and egress to the existing Table Mountain Casino is provided through

two driveways along Millerton Road east of Sky Harbour Road, and one driveway along Sky Harbour

Road north of Millerton Road.

2.0 Project Description


Potable water for the Table Mountain Casino is obtained through the Fresno County Service Area No. 34

(CSA 34) pipeline that extends from Millerton Lake and is treated at the existing WTP located in the

northwest portion of the project site, which has a maximum capacity of 750,000 gallons per day (GPD)

and a daily capacity of 500,000 GPD. At the WTP there is one raw water storage tank with a capacity of

750,000 gallons and one treated water storage tank with a capacity of 500,000 gallons. An additional

500,000-gallon treated water storage tank is located within the project site near Sky Harbour Road north

of the Pow Wow area and unpaved parking lots. The average day water demand of the existing casino is

approximately 148,226 GPD (TMR, 2017). The average day potable water demand of all facilities on the

Reservation served by the WTP, including the existing casino facilities, tribal government buildings, and

residences on the Reservation, is approximately 179,000 GPD; the peak day demand is approximately

321,000 GPD (Appendix B).

Wastewater generated by the existing casino is treated by the on-Reservation WWTP less than 1.0 mile

east of the project site, which has an average daily capacity of 500,000 GPD and a maximum daily

capacity of 1,500,000 GPD (Appendix B). The average day wastewater flow treated by the WWTP is

approximately 125,000 GPD and the peak day flow is approximately 225,000 GPD (Appendix B).

Disinfected treated water is stored for either re-use or disposal in two 500,000 gallon tanks. Treated

wastewater is used to meet fire flow requirements; for landscape irrigation of approximately one acre of

landscaping surrounding the WWTP, cemetery land, and other buildings within the tribal property; and

for dust control (Appendix B). Treated wastewater that is not re-used within the Rancheria is discharged

to an unnamed tributary of Little Dry Creek via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit number CA0084280.

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

The Proposed Project would result in the construction of a new casino-hotel facility within tribal trust

land located approximately 900 feet to the west of the existing Table Mountain Casino. The existing

Table Mountain Casino would be closed and the facilities converted into tribal governmental uses (refer

to Section 2.2.10). The new casino-hotel would consist of approximately 549,294 sf of building space

with an approximately 110,000-sf gaming floor, 151-room hotel, 1,075 restaurant seats, child care

facility, bingo hall, 1,500-seat special event center and ancillary facilities (Table 2-1). The Proposed

Project would employ 1,454 total employees, which is an increase of 454 employees from those

employed by the existing casino. A site plan for the proposed facilities is presented as Figure 4 and an

architectural rendering is presented as Figures 5a and 5b. Table 2-1 provides a breakdown of project

components with associated square footages. As with the existing facility, the Proposed Project would be

constructed to meet the applicable building code requirements of the Compact. This would include

meeting or exceeding the requirements of the International Building Code (IBC).

EventCenterBingoCasino

MainEntry

Hotel

ParkingGarage

Parking:Surface 01

Parking:Surface 03a

Parking:Surface 03b

RetentionPond 01

RetentionPond 02

MainEntry

Parking:Surface 02

BusParking

ServiceEntry 01

RetentionPond 03

RetentionPond 04

Spoils 02

Spoils 01

ServiceEntry 02

WaterFeatureMillerton Rd

Winchell Cove Rd

Sky H

arbou

r Rd

Table

Mou

ntain

Rd

Figure 4Site Plan

SOURCE: JCJ Architecture, 3/19/2018; DigitalGlobe aerial photograph, 8/7/2017; AES, 5/22/2018 Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Environmental Evaluation / 214514

LEGEND

0 190 380

Feet

Utility CorridorProject Site / Tribal Trust Land

Development Footprint

60 Acres - Gaming Eligible

Existing Unpaved Roads

Retention Pond

Spoils Locations

Building Footprint


Figure 5aArchitectural Rendering

SOURCE: JCJ Architecture, 3/19/2018; AES, 3/21/18


Figure 5bArchitectural Rendering

SOURCE: JCJ Architecture, 3/19/2018; AES, 3/21/18



TABLE 2-1 PROPOSED PROJECT PROGRAM

Facility Existing Casino (to be closed)

New Casino Net Change

Casino Gaming Floor 59,700 sf 110,000 sf +50,300 sf

Gaming Devices 2,048 2,680 +632

Table Games 40 42 +2

Poker Tables 10 10 N/A

Restaurants and Bars

Buffet 324 seats 500 seats +176 seats

Three-meal Restaurant 238 seats 275 seats +37 seats

Dinner Tapnyaki Grill - 200 seats +200 seats

Food Court - 100 seats +100 seats

Retail – Gift Shop/Sundries 544 sf 1,323 sf +779 sf

Child Care - 8,970 sf +8,970 sf

Hotel - 151 rooms +151 rooms

Bingo Hall1 700 seats

12,600 sf

700 seats

21,192 sf +8,592 sf

Special Event Venue1 1,200 seats 1,500 seats 17,250 sf

+300 seats +17,250 sf

Meeting Rooms - 345 seats 6,900 sf

+345 seats +6,900 sf

Sub-Total Square Footage 234,000 sf 549,294 sf +315,294 sf

Parking 875 garage spaces

(337,277 sf) 418 surface spaces

2,000 garage spaces (723,250 sf)

1,132 surface spaces

+1,125 garage spaces (+385,973 sf)

+714 surface spaces

Total Square Footage 571,277 sf 1,289,415 sf +718,138 sf

Notes: 1 – The existing casino utilizes the same facility for the bingo hall and special event venue. The new facility will provide a bingo

space separate from the special event venue. Source: Ray, 2017; JCJ, 2017.

2.2.1 NEW CASINO-HOTEL

As shown in Figure 4, the new casino-hotel facility would be located on an undeveloped area of the

project site located northeast of the intersection of Table Mountain Road and Brighton Crest Drive. The

building façade would be set back approximately 150 feet from Millerton Road. The casino and hotel

will use earth tones, will be aesthetically pleasing, and have been designed to blend in with the

surrounding landscape and scenery. The gaming areas within the casino facility would be located within

the area of tribal trust land that is eligible for gaming as shown on Figure 3. The Proposed Project would

result in a net increase from the existing casino facility of approximately 50,300 sf of gaming floor, 8,592

sf of bingo space, 17,250 sf of special event space, and 513 restaurant seats. The proposed hotel

(including associated meeting rooms) and child care facilities would be new amenities not currently

provided at the existing Table Mountain Casino. Consistent with operations at the existing facility,

alcohol will not be served at the proposed facility.



The special event venue will be used for monthly concerts, banquets, special private events, and as a

conference center. The special event venue would have a maximum seating of 1,500 seats which is an

increase of 300 seats from the existing event center/bingo hall. The new facility includes a separate bingo

hall from the event center which will operate 7 days per week.

The proposed hotel tower would be located to the northwest of the gaming area. The hotel would include

a spa, salon, fitness center, pool, six conference center meeting rooms with a total of 345 seats, and 151

rooms. The ground floor of the hotel tower, which is one level below the casino floor, would contain the

approximately 8,970-sf child care/kids activity center. Level 1 of the proposed hotel tower would include

the lobby, which is not confined to the hotel tower footprint, as it serves the remainder of the development

as well. Level 2, which is at the same level as the roof of the rest of the facility, would include the spa,

approximately salon, and fitness center. Level 3 would be used as administrative offices and meeting

rooms. Level 4 would be entirely composed of administrative offices. Level 5 would be a short floor

used for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) transfer. Levels 6 through 10 floors would be

comprised of 16 standard hotel rooms and 4 suites, Level 11 floor would be comprised of 15 standard

hotel rooms and 4 suites, Level 12 would be comprised of 10 standard rooms and 5 suites, and Level 13

would be comprised of 9 standard rooms and 5 suites. Level 14, the highest floor, would be a restaurant.

The top of the hotel tower would be at 969 feet in elevation (189 feet total from the casino ground floor

elevation of 780 feet).

2.2.2 SITE ACCESS

The project site currently has no access points along Millerton Road. Two access driveways are proposed

along Millerton Road to provide entrance and egress from the site: the main access driveway for patrons

would be located across from Brighton Crest Drive and a secondary service access for employees and

truck drivers would be provided west of the main entrance along Millerton Road. The main access

driveway intersection would be configured to provide both right turn and left turn acceleration and/or

deceleration lanes with the following lane configuration:

Southbound approach: 1 left turn/through lane and 1 right turn lane;

Eastbound approach: 2 left turn lanes, 1 through lane, and 1 through/right turn lane; and

Westbound approach: 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane.

The service driveway intersection would be configured to provide right and left turn deceleration lanes

into the driveway and a right turn acceleration lane out of the driveway. The service access driveway

would include signage indicating it is to be used for deliveries only and use by patrons is prohibited. The

service driveway would follow existing unpaved roads within the project site to the loading dock areas.

The area adjacent to Millerton Road within the project site and tribal trust lands would be improved

consistent with the County’s plans for the Millerton Road Widening Project and to provide left- and right-

turn acceleration and deceleration lanes at the two project site entrances. A public utility corridor would



be located immediately north of the new Millerton Road alignment within the southern project site

boundary and within the new proposed County road right-of-way area within the project site. An existing

driveway from Sky Harbour Road will provide a third access point, primarily for bus use. Buses will

enter the project site through this driveway, drop off passengers at a bus pull out near the bingo hall, and

exit through the main driveway across from Brighton Crest Drive. Delivery trucks and large vehicles

which would utilize the loading docks (both the main loading dock and the event center loading dock)

would also utilize the Sky Harbour Road driveway.

A fire road is planned for development along the northern border of the proposed facility. This road

provides access to all sides of the building.

A loading dock will be located adjacent to the ground floor, at the northwest corner of the building

between the building services and parking garage. An additional loading dock for the event center would

be located at the northeastern corner of the building adjacent to the event support area.

Access driveways within the site would involve two vehicle crossings of the unnamed ephemeral drainage

that extends from north to south within the central portion of the project site. The drainage crossings

would consist of clear-span bridges that would avoid all impacts to the bed, bank, and channel of the

drainage.

2.2.3 PARKING

The Proposed Project would include the addition of 1,132 surface parking spaces within the project site as

shown in Figure 4. The surface parking lots will be located west of the main facility, with overflow

parking west of the surface parking lot. A 5-story parking garage, with 400 spaces per level (2,000 spaces

total), will be constructed at the northwestern corner of the proposed development.

2.2.4 WATER SUPPLY

The Proposed Project would obtain potable water from the existing facilities described in Section 2.1, via

a new connection with the existing 6-inch water line that runs adjacent to the planned development

footprint, as shown on Figure 6. Table 2-2 shows the average day water demand and wastewater

generation for each component of the Proposed Project. Considering the closure of the existing Table

Mountain Casino, the Proposed Project would result in a net increase in average day water demand of

approximately 184,000 GPD and a net increase in peak day demand of approximately 331,000 GPD,

which would increase the combined average day demand of existing and proposed facilities served by the

Tribe’s water supply system to approximately 363,000 GPD and would increase the combined peak day

demand to 652,000 GPD (Appendix B). As described above, the WTP’s existing maximum treatment

capacity is 750,000 GPD and the average day capacity is 500,000 GPD, which would be adequate to

supply the potable water needs of the Proposed Project.

Millerton Rd

Winchell Cove Rd

Sky H

arbou

r Rd

Table

Mou

ntain

Rd

TMR T-ValveConnection

Existing Water Tank

Existing Treated Water Tank

Proposed Connection toExisting Water System

Surface WaterTreatment Plant

Figure 6Proposed Water System Improvements

SOURCE: JCJ Architecture, 3/19/2018; DigitalGlobe aerial photograph, 8/7/2017; AES, 5/22/2018 Table Mountain Rancheria Casino Relocation Project Environmental Evaluation / 214514

LEGEND

0 190 380

Feet


Proposed Building Footprint

Existing Tribal Water Pipelines

Existing County Water Pipelines



TABLE 2-2 PROPOSED PROJECT INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND AND WASTEWATER GENERATION

New Development Area

Net Increase in Average Day

Water Demand (GPD)1

Net Increase in Average Day Wastewater

Generation (GPD)

Casino 19,739 13,817

Restaurants 49,844 34,891

Retail/Child Care 1,494 1,046

Hotel 29,596 20,717

Banquet and Meeting Space 3,401 2,381

Other2 79,223 55,456

Total 184,0003 129,0003

Notes: 1 – Water demand estimated from wastewater generation values based on a 30

percent domestic water loss. 2 – Includes cooling towers. 3 – Rounded up to the nearest 1,000 GPD. Source: Appendix B.

The design criteria for the WTP stipulates that there be sufficient raw water storage volume for two days

of peak demand (approximately 1,300,000 gallons following implementation of the Proposed Project) and

sufficient treated water storage volume for one day of peak demand (approximately 650,000 GPD

following implementation of the Proposed Project) (Appendix B). The existing 1,000,000 gallons of

treated water storage volume would be adequate to accommodate the Proposed Project. The Proposed

Project includes the construction of a second 750,000 gallon raw water storage tank near the existing raw

water storage tank, which would increase the total raw water storage capacity to approximately 1,500,000

gallons and would provide sufficient storage volume to accommodate the Proposed Project. The

proposed casino and hotel facility expansion would require a fire protection flow of approximately 3,000

GPM for 2 hours, which equates to 360,000 gallons of storage required; this would be adequately

supplied by the existing reclaimed water storage tanks (Appendix B).

The potable water needed to supply the Proposed Project would come from two existing water supply

contracts. Under Warren Act Contract Number 18-WC-20-5284, the Tribe can introduce, convey, and

store up to 600 AFY (approximately 536,000 GPD) of groundwater pumped from the Flyin’ J Ranch,

owned by the Tribe, and discharged to Kerckhoff Lake, a reservoir on the San Joaquin River upstream of

Millerton Lake. The Tribe can then use CSA 34 infrastructure to pump the 600 AFY of conveyed

groundwater from Millerton Lake for treatment at their WTP and use on the Reservation. In addition, the

Tribe has been entering into annual agreements with the Madera Irrigation District (Madera ID) to receive

up to 100 acre-feet per year (AFY; approximately 89,000 GPD) of Madera ID’s Soquel Water via CSA 34

infrastructure.

The 700 AFY of water available under the above agreements is the equivalent of approximately 625,000

GPD, which, with the available storage capacity, is adequate to meet the average day and peak day



demand of the Proposed Project and the existing facilities (Appendix B). The Warren Act Contract to

convey groundwater from Flyin’ J Ranch is in the process of being extended from a 5-year contract set to

expire in February 2020 (Warren Act Contract Number 15-WC-20-4686) to a 25-year contract (Warren

Act Contract Number 18-WC-20-5284). The agreement for 100 AFY of Madera ID’s Soquel Water has

been renewed on an annual basis for approximately 15 years. The environmental impacts of the Tribe’s

conveyance of groundwater to its WTP from Flyin’ J Ranch via Millerton Lake and CSA 34 infrastructure

were previously analyzed in the “Table Mountain Rancheria as Recipient for the Madera Irrigation

District and Flyin’ J Contracts Final Environmental Assessment” (EA-16-007; USBR, 2016).

In addition to the existing agreements described above, the Tribe continues to engage in negotiations to

augment its water supply portfolio. For instance, the Bureau of Reclamation has already analyzed in EA-

16-007 the environmental impacts associated with the Tribe receiving an additional 400 AFY of Soquel

Water from Madera ID via CSA 34 infrastructure. The Tribe has engaged in discussions with Madera ID

to increase its water supply.

2.2.5 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

The Proposed Project would cause the average daily wastewater flow to the Tribe’s WWTP to increase by

approximately 129,000 GPD and the peak day flow rate to increase by approximately 232,000 gpd, which

would contribute to a total average day wastewater flow rate of approximately 254,000 GPD and a total

peak day flow rate of approximately 457,000 GPD at the WWTP (which includes flows from the casino,

tribal governmental facilities, residences, and other uses within the Reservation; Appendix B).

Wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be treated by the wastewater treatment facility

described in Section 2.1 and discharged to the existing reclaimed water tanks for landscape irrigation,

dust control, and fire suppression. Recycled water will also be used on the project site for landscape

irrigation. This will require the construction of a recycled water pipeline from just east of Sky Harbour

Road along Table Mountain Road to the Proposed Project. A discussion of potential effects to water

quality from the increased wastewater flows is provided in Section 3.6.2. To accommodate the Proposed

Project, the wastewater collection system would require upgrades, including a new gravity sewer, sewer

lift station, and force main conveying sewage from the lift station to the WWTP. The new conveyance

system will be designed to convey the 396,000 GPD of peak daily wastewater flows that would be

generated at the new casino-hotel facility under the Proposed Project (Appendix B). The proposed

location of these improvements is shown on Figure 7.

2.2.6 GAS AND ELECTRICITY

On the Rancheria, propane gas is used for heating and cooking through the use of individual on-site tanks

available through private propane distribution companies. A 13,000-gallon propane tank is located

adjacent to the existing casino, north of Table Mountain Road. For the Proposed Project, propane fuel

would be stored within a liquefied petroleum gas horizontal pressurized vessel tank. Six boilers would be

used for heating purposes. Fuel storage tanks would be required for the operation of four, 2,250-kW

NO

RT

H

NOT TO SCALE

RESERVATION / RANCHERIARESERVATION / RANCHERIA


Figure 7Proposed Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements

SOURCE: HydroScience, 2018; AES, 5/2/2018



emergency diesel generators on the project site and would be regulated by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The double-walled fuel tanks would be housed within the

individual generator units, including integrated leak detection systems. The generators would be located

in areas that are easily accessible to maintenance and emergency personnel and would be compliant with

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electrical service to existing homes and businesses in the project

area through 21 kilovolt (kV) overhead electric facilities between Friant Road and Auberry Road along

Millerton Road. Several PG&E power lines and associated easements extend through the project site

along Millerton Road and Winchell Cove Road. Additionally, a PG&E power line transects the

southwestern corner of the project site.

The current overhead PG&E lines would be relocated underground as part of the improvements to

Millerton Road (refer to Section 2.2.2, above). The underground service would first be constructed and

placed, and once the underground lines are connected and providing service the overhead lines and power

poles would be removed. The underground lines will be placed in trenches, with aboveground

transformers and other equipment installed on concrete pads as needed.

The Proposed Project would incorporate energy efficient features generally consistent with the standards

of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which sets minimum efficiency requirements for

building construction materials and energy-consuming equipment in California, or as approved by the

authority having jurisdiction. The existing casino has a peak electrical energy demand 3 megawatt (MW;

Hoogerhyde, 2017). The proposed casino-hotel and auxiliary support facilities are anticipated to have a

peak electrical energy demand of approximately 5 MW (a 2-MW increase from the existing casino)

(Hoogerhyde, 2017). PG&E is in the process of conducting a load study to confirm the capacity of its

existing transmission facilities to serve the Proposed Project.

2.2.7 STORMWATER/DRAINAGE

The project site consists of gradually rolling hills with gentle to steep slopes and generally drains north to

south. Stormwater runoff on the project site is conveyed to Millerton Road by a series of natural

channels, from which it is conveyed southward under the road through four drainage culverts and a box

culvert. As stated in the Drainage Study (Appendix C), the Proposed Project will construct retention

basins to hold at least 4.7-acre feet (AF) of stormwater from 100-year 24-hour storm events to

compensate for the increased impervious surfaces under the Proposed Project. The basins will be

constructed with 3:1 side slopes. The depths, surface areas, and locations of the retention basin(s) will be

determined in the final design phase, prior to construction. There may be up to four retention basins,

providing a total of 5.01 AF in storage, in one or more of the locations as shown on Figure 4. The

Proposed Project would incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) practices to reduce run-off rates and

improve the quality of stormwater runoff, including the use of pervious surfaces and bioswales



throughout the parking areas to filter stormwater by capturing sediments and pollutants within the

vegetation and surface soil matrix and the installation of catch basin insert filters at select storm drains to

capture sediment, debris, trash, oil, and grease from stormwater.

2.2.8 CONSTRUCTION

Construction Equipment and Techniques

Grading Activities and Blasting

Due to the generally hilly terrain on the project site, the Proposed Project would construct retaining walls

along the northern roadway surrounding the casino building, and along the southwest portion of the

casino building just north of Millerton Road as necessary to construct level building pads for the proposed

casino-hotel and parking facilities. The Proposed Project would require the excavation of approximately

531,723 cubic yards (CY) of existing native material from the footprint of the proposed casino, parking

structure, hotel and various site features. To the extent possible, excavated materials will be used as fill

within the project site. Of this material, approximately 50 percent, or 265,862 CY is estimated to consist

of hard rock. Removal of this hard rock will be done using a combination of clawing by excavator, rock

breaking, and dynamite blasting:

Fractured material will be clawed from its on-site condition using an attachment to a large

excavator.

Rock breaking of non-fractured material will be accomplished using large excavator(s) equipped

with rock breaking bits of varying sizes and weights.

Blasting will be utilized in cases where neither clawing nor breaking is able to result in fracturing

in place rock to a degree sufficient for removal and transportation, and will be accomplished by

drilling the existing rock formations, once exposed, with diamond tipped drills to the depth

necessary, in a grid pattern, and filling the drilled holes with dynamite charges.

All areas where blasting will occur will be topped with a layer of pre-excavated native earth to a depth of

approximately 2 to 3 feet above the top of the exposed hard rock. The purpose of this earthen cap is to

mitigate noise and vibration caused when the dynamite ignites. This dirt cap also provides a level of

safety by ensuring that any rock loosened during the explosive charge remains below the surface of the

cap fill.

A contractor specializing in rock excavation by blasting will layout a grid work of up to several yards in

dimension, depending on depth and hardness of the material to be excavated. Once the grid is drilled,

dynamite set and dirt cap applied, the charges are detonated in a rolling sequence, resulting in a muffled

“thump” and rolling wave of dirt movement, indicating the pattern in which the blast has been oriented.

A signal blast typically lasts a few seconds and results in little noise and a minimal amount of dust caused

by disturbance earthen cap layer. Observers can safely view the blast sequence from a restricted area



approximately 100 feet from any given blast area. All areas adjacent to the area to be blasted in a given

sequence will be cordoned off in accordance with all applicable safety codes.

Once a given area has been blasted, traditional earthmoving equipment, consisting of excavators,

bulldozers and large backhoes, will remove the earthen cap and dislodge the fractured rock from its native

state. The rock will either be utilized within the project site for decorative purposes, or processed by

additional rock quarry equipment to various specifications, including that used for aggregate road base, or

for other uses. Rock and other material that is unsuitable for use would be retained in the previously

excavated quarry and other disturbed areas located south of the WTP (refer to Figure 4). The spoils area

could accept up to 150,000 CY of fill material.

The majority of rock to be excavated in this manner is to be found at the base of the hills at the back of

the project footprint, several hundred feet away from Millerton Road and neighboring residents. Noise

will be limited to the muffled “thud” during each blast, as well as typical excavation activities occurring

both before and after each blasting event. It is anticipated that, depending again on depth and hardness of

the in place rock, blasting events could range from 5 to 10 blast events per week, for a period of several

months, with each blast event lasting an average of 10 to 20 seconds.

Equipment

The following construction equipment may be used during construction of the Proposed Project:

Dozers

Tractors

Loaders

Backhoes

Excavators

Graders

Scrapers

Cranes

Forklifts

Generator Sets

Welders

Pavers

Paving Equipment

Rollers

Air Compressors

Construction Phasing

Construction of the Proposed Project is expected to begin in January 2019 and is anticipated to take

approximately 24 months to complete, with a completion date in 2021 and first full year of operation in

2022.

2.2.9 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would incorporate a variety of industry standard Best

Management Practices (BMPs). In many cases, such as Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans

(SWPPPs) prepared for NPDES permits, certain BMPs are requisite conditions of permit approval.

Section 3.0 presents select BMPs that have been specifically incorporated into the project design to avoid

or minimize potential adverse effects resulting from the development of the Proposed Project.



2.2.10 RENOVATION OF EXISTING CASINO FOR TRIBAL GOVERNMENTAL USES

The Tribe currently uses portable buildings for tribal governmental purposes. Under the Proposed

Project, the existing Table Mountain Casino would be converted to tribal governmental uses, such as

administrative offices or tribal services. While no exterior renovations would occur, interior renovations

may take place. Once the existing casino is renovated for tribal uses, the currently utilized portable

buildings would either be converted for low intensity uses (i.e. storage) or moved off site.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION

In addition to the Proposed Project, the Tribe also considered several other project alternatives that were

ultimately eliminated from consideration. These are described below.

Alternative Locations

The Tribe considered alternative locations for relocation of the Table Mountain Casino; however, there

are currently no tribal trust parcels on the Reservation aside from the project site that are undeveloped,

eligible for gaming, and would be of suitable size and topography to accommodate a casino-hotel facility.

Expansion of the Existing Casino Facility

Expansion and renovation of the existing Table Mountain Casino to accommodate a hotel, larger gaming

floor, additional dining options, and other amenities is constrained by existing development and steep

topography to the north and by land that is not owned by the Tribe to the south and east. Additionally,

expansion of the existing Table Mountain Casino would require a near-complete demolition of the

existing facilities due to their age and design, which would severely impede the Tribe’s capacity to

generate revenue until the new facility is operational. This alternative was eliminated from detailed

consideration because it would not meet the Tribe’s objectives for implementing the project (refer to

Section 1.3).

3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS


SECTION 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

An initial analysis of potential off-Reservation environmental effects was performed by use of a checklist modeled after the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Checklist in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) NEPA Handbook (59 IAM 3-H) and the Initial Study checklist contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The completed Off-Reservation Environmental Impact Analysis Checklist (Checklist) is included as Appendix A to this Environmental Evaluation (EE). Issues identified within the Checklist as having the potential to be adversely effected by the Proposed Project, as well as potential areas of controversy, are addressed in greater detail within this section. These issues include: Aesthetics Air Quality Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Water Resources Noise

Public Services – Fire Protection , Police Protection

Transportation Utilities and Service Systems – Solid Waste

Disposal, Gas and Electricity Providers Socioeconomics

The remaining issue areas were eliminated from detailed discussion in this EE because it was determined that the Proposed Project would not have any potentially significant adverse off-Reservation effects to these issue areas. The analysis of these issue areas is included within the Checklist (Appendix A).

3.1.1 CUMULATIVE SETTING

The cumulative setting includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions not part of the Proposed Project, but related to cumulative effects. This includes projected growth and zoning as detailed in the Fresno County General Plan. The cumulative impact analysis within this EE considered the construction of the list of potential cumulative actions and projects in the vicinity and additional growth in accordance with the County General Plan. Cumulative effects analysis is based on the assumed enforcement of federal, State, and local regulations, including the implementation of the policies outlined in the County General Plan. Cumulative impacts for each environmental issue area are discussed below in Sections 3.2 through 3.11. The rate of population growth in Fresno County (County) is approximately 1.65 percent, per the County General Plan (Fresno County, 2000).

3.0 Impact Analysis


Potentially Cumulative Actions and Projects

Major development projects proposed and/or currently being constructed in the vicinity of the project site are listed below and are assumed under cumulative conditions. Transportation projects planned within the traffic study area are listed below. These improvements are expected to be operational by the cumulative year and will increase overall capacity and improve circulation: Millerton Road Widening Project – This project aims to reconstruct Millerton Road from a 2-

lane rural roadway to a 4-lane divided arterial roadway from North Fork Road to the State Park entrance at Millerton Lake. This is a portion of the larger 4.7-mile roadway improvement project which extends to east of Table Mountain Road.

Auberry Road Intersection Improvement Project – This project improves the intersection of State Route (SR) 168 and Auberry Road to decrease the number of accidents that occur at this intersection. The project would construct a single-lane roundabout and relocate nearby driveways.

San Joaquin River Bridge Scour and Seismic Retrofit Project – This project is located at the SR-41 crossing over the San Joaquin River, and would correct degradation at the existing bridge to improve safety and stability.

As described in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), tThe following development projects are either proposed, pending, or approved within the County, and have the potential to are conservatively assumed to be operational in the cumulative scenario; however, it should be noted that the County anticipates that several of these projects will either be not completed, not be fully built out, or not to be fully built out until after the cumulative year assumed within this EE (2040): Friant Ranch Development – Consists of 2,766 senior adult residential units, 230 apartment

units, a 10,000-square foot (sf) restaurant, a 5,000-sf fast-food restaurant, 10,000 sf of medical/dental offices, 100,000 sf of general office space, and 125,000 sf of retail space.

Sumner Peck Winery/Fruit Stand – Small winery and fruit stand facility. Brighton Crest – Tentative Map approved for 420 dwelling units. Millerton New Town – A mix of residential (3,499 dwelling units) and commercial

development. Big Sandy Casino – A large casino is with slot machines, a large bingo hall, a poker room,

restaurants, and entertainment facilities. Mira Bella – Residential Development with approximately 56 dwelling units. Sky Harbor – Residential Development with approximately 220 dwelling units. Ventana Hills – Residential Development with approximately 91 dwelling units. Gary MacDonald – Residential Development with approximately 9 dwelling units. Gateway Village – Residential (6,578 dwelling units) and commercial development.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Gunner Ranch West – Residential (2,840 dwelling units) and commercial development. Liberty Groves – Residential (7,012 dwelling units) and commercial development. Northshore at Millerton Lake – Residential (1,000 dwelling units) and commercial

development. Tesoro Viejo – Residential (5,190 dwelling units) and commercial development. Copper River Ranch Development – Consists of 2,837 residential units and 60 acres of mixed-

use commercial. Vulcan Highway 41 Quarry. Madera Ranch Quarry. Hildreth Quarry. Zinkin Development – Consists of 180,713 sf of general office space. Fresno 40 Development – Mixed-Use Development.

The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) calculated cumulative year growth based on the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) travel model’s growth rate of 3 percent per year. This encompasses anticipated traffic from proposed and approved development projects as well as buildout of the County General Plan.

3.2 AESTHETICS

3.2.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The project site is in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada just south of Millerton Lake. The southwestern portion of the site itself is relatively flat with steep hills to the northeast. The project site contains steep slopes north of the proposed development area. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 670 to approximately 1,100 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Landscape features that define the visual character of the project site are related to a variety of natural features. The project site is dominated by California annual grassland with oak trees and rock outcroppings (Figure 8, Photos 1 through 6). The project site can be viewed from Millerton, Sky Harbour, and Winchell Cove Roads. No roadways in the vicinity of the project site are designated as scenic roadways by the County or Caltrans (Fresno County, 2000; Caltrans, 2017a). Motorists on Millerton Road do not tend to experience long-range views of the project site, especially when travelling east to west, because numerous curves in the roadway result in the project site being shielded by steep hills, vegetation, and existing structures. The Eagle Springs Golf Course and Country Club with residential lots is located immediately south of the project site and several on-Reservation residences are located immediately east of the project site. The nearest private off-Reservation residences are located approximately 350 feet south within the Eagle Springs Golf Course and Country Club. Views of the project site from the vantage points of these sensitive receptors are partially blocked by landscaping between the residential development and Millerton Road. However, the project site is elevated above Millerton Road, and includes several hills, which makes it easy to see from the golf course development.


Figure 8Site Photographs

SOURCE: AES, 5/2/2018

PHOTO 1: View of project site looking north.

PHOTO 3: View of project site looking northeast.

PHOTO 5: View of project site and southern development looking south.

PHOTO 2: View of project site facing southeast from north-western corner.

PHOTO 4: View of project site looking southwest.

PHOTO 6: View of project site and existing Casino looking southeast.

3.0 Impact Analysis


3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Scenic Vistas

The Proposed Project would include the construction of a new casino with 12-story hotel tower within the project site. The Proposed Project would take place within previously ungraded and undeveloped land and, therefore, would alter existing landforms. Blasting of the hillside to the north of the proposed casino facility would substantially alter the topography of the site. However, significant grading of the site would only occur in the direct vicinity of the proposed buildings and roadways, and the project would largely maintain the current topography of the site, with impacts to the hillsides minimized as much as possible. The Proposed Project would result in the removal of approximately 15 large mature trees and 29 less mature trees. To the extent feasible, the project has been designed to preserve mature trees, such as those located near the entrance roadway and parking lots to the southwest of the proposed casino building. However, the majority of trees on the project site would not be disturbed, as less than 80 percent of the site would be developed under the Proposed Project. Overhead utility lines would be undergrounded along the northern right-of-way to Millerton Road along the frontage of the project site and a result of the Proposed Project. This would be a visual improvement, as utility lines and poles marginally obscure views of the surrounding landscape and are not typically considered to be aesthetically pleasing. The design of the Proposed Project would continue the aesthetic concept and palette of the existing casino adjacent to the project site. As seen in Figures 5a and 5b, the Proposed Project would not significantly alter the off-Reservation views of visual resources in the surrounding area, as the surrounding hills would remain partially visible, and the hotel tower has been designed with visual breaks within the building (refer to Figures 5a and 5b).1 With the exception of the hotel tower, the proposed building would be one story in height. As described in Section 2.2.1, the buildings will use earth tones, will be aesthetically pleasing, and have been designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape and scenery. Views experienced by drivers on Millerton Road would be altered to include the casino development adjacent to the steep hillside. This would be similar to the existing views of the existing Table Mountain Casino adjacent to the project site to the east. The proposed facilities would not significantly impede views of natural scenic resources. In addition, the horizontal exposure of the Proposed Project, or duration of the view of the Proposed Project, would continue to be short term in nature, due to the high travel speeds of motorists.

1 As shown on the architectural renderings, the proposed hotel tower is separated into two vertical columns, with open air balconies on the highest floors.

3.0 Impact Analysis


The residential development located south of the site would experience permanent visual impacts from the development of the Proposed Project. The Eagle Springs Golf Course and Country Club community, particularly those homes situated at higher elevations, would have a direct line of sight to the Proposed Project, and views from front and backyards would be altered by the development from a mostly undeveloped area to a large commercial building complex. Mitigation provided in Section 3.2.3 would minimize the potential effects associated with the development and would reduce impacts to nearby residences to less-than-significant levels. Off-Reservation effects on the views from the nearby residential development from the Proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation. By clustering the proposed development in the eastern portion of the project site, near existing tribal development, the visual effects of the project would be mitigated through the project design. Therefore, off-Reservation effects associated with scenic and visual resources resulting from the Proposed Project are considered less than significant.

Light and Glare

Operation of the Proposed Project at night would require additional night lighting which would have the potential to adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors, including the Eagle Springs Golf Course and Country Club and residential lots located immediately south of the project site. This lighting would be similar to lighting systems currently located at the existing casino. Security lighting would be utilized, which would emit light during nighttime hours. All proposed light fixtures would be directed on site to only illuminate the proposed buildings, parking lots, and on-site roadways and pedestrian paths, which would ensure minimal light spillover onto adjacent properties. Additionally, the proposed casino facility and hotel tower would include numerous windows (refer to Figures 5a and 5b), which would increase glare at off-site receptors. Mitigation provided in Section 3.2.3 would minimize the potential effects associated with night lighting and would reduce impacts from glare to less-than-significant levels. Off-Reservation effects resulting from the additional light and glare generated by the Proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation.

Cumulative

New development would be consistent with local land use regulations, including associated design guidelines. Cumulative effects would include a shift from open, undeveloped lots to views of developed areas within the County. The Proposed Project would not impede views of scenic resources. Additionally, although the Proposed Project would result in the removal of several mature trees, the majority of the site (more than 80 percent) would remain as undeveloped open space. By clustering the proposed development in the eastern portion of the project site, near existing tribal development, the visual effects of the project would be mitigated through the project design. With the implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 3.2.3, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources.

3.0 Impact Analysis


3.2.3 MITIGATION

Project design shall ensure that project-related impacts to off-Reservation residences are minimized. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce aesthetics, lighting, and glare impacts: Screening features and natural elements should be developed to screen the view of the facilities

from existing residences directly adjacent to the south of the project site. Exterior glass will be glazed with a non-reflective, tinted coating to minimize glare and nighttime

illumination. Exterior lighting, including security, walkway, and decorative fixtures will consist of downcast,

fully shielded lights. Utilize light fixtures and bulbs that comply with the International Dark Sky Association (IDA)

recommendations that reduces glare, light trespass, and nighttime sky lighting. Install light fixtures to reduce off-site light spillover.

Minimize security lighting during nighttime hours (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) and utilize motion-sensitive lighting as much as possible.

Utilize light bulbs that emit minimal blue light and have a color temperature of no more than 3,000 Kelvin.

3.3 AIR QUALITY


San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

The project site is located in Fresno County, which lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB includes the following counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and the western portion of Kern. Regional climate and topography play a large role in air pollution transport and subsequent ambient air pollution concentrations. The topography surrounding the Rancheria consists of foothill ranges and valleys, ranging in elevation from 600 feet amsl to 1,100 feet amsl. The varying elevations of the topography tend to restrict air flow and ventilation, creating meteorological barriers that can trap pollutants transported from these air basins and contribute to violations of applicable air quality standards in the SJVAB. Due to the complexity of the SJVAB’s pollution transport system, air pollution in the region is further exacerbated. Airflow patterns within the SJVAB can generally be characterized by northwesterly up-valley winds, marine winds from the San Francisco Bay Area, down-valley and foothill drainage (down sloping) winds, and northerly (non-marine) winds resulting from the exiting of a low pressure system. During the winter, down-sloping winds from the Sierra Nevada Mountains predominate because of high-pressure systems to the east, and during the summer, northwesterly winds predominate because of the

3.0 Impact Analysis


entrance and exit of low-pressure systems (WRCC, 2013). Winds from the north during the summer months transport pollutants from the Bay Area and Sacramento region south along the western portion of the SJVAB and cycle the pollutants along the southern portion of the SJVAB. Pollutants are then transported either out of the SJVAB to the south or north along the eastern portion of the SJVAB. Pollutants are sometimes carried east up the foothill valleys during the summer. Due to high pressure system in the east during the winter months, winds transport pollution west out of the foothills. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJV is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. Because of expansional cooling of the atmosphere, air temperature usually decreases with altitude. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. Inversions can exist at the surface, or at any height above the ground. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the “mixing height”. This is the level to which pollutants can mix vertically. Semi-permanent systems of high barometric pressure fronts frequently establish themselves over the SJVAB and in the foothills where the Rancheria is located, deflecting low-pressure systems that might otherwise bring cleansing rain and winds. In addition to geography and climate, causes of poor air quality in the SJVAB also include mobile, agricultural, and stationary emission sources.

Regulatory Setting

Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both national and state ambient air quality standards and emissions limits for individual sources of air pollutants. The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. National standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SOX), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead. These pollutants are called “criteria” air pollutants because standards have been established for each of them to meet specific public health and welfare criteria. As the responsible agency for enforcing the CAA, the USEPA has regulatory authority over tribal lands, including the Tribe’s Reservation. Under amendments to the CAA, USEPA has classified air basins, or portions thereof, as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the national standards have been achieved. In 1988, the State Legislature passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which is patterned after the CAA to the extent that areas are required to be designated as “attainment” or “non-attainment” for the state standards. The state standard includes the NAAQS criteria pollutants and adds four more; visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Thus, areas in California have two sets of designations: one set with respect to the national standards and one set with respect to the state standards. NAAQS and CAAQS for criteria pollutants are listed in Table 3-1.

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Averaging

Time

Standard (parts per million)

Standard (microgram per cubic meter)

Violation Criteria

CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS

Ozone

1 hour 0.09 - 180 - If exceeded N/A

8 hours 0.070 0.070 137 137 N/A If exceeded on more than 3 days in 3 years

CO

8 hours 9 9 10,000 10,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year

1 hour 20 35 23,000 40,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year

NOx

Annual average

0.030 0.053 57 100 N/A If exceeded

1 hour 0.18 0.1 339 188 If exceeded N/A

SOx

Annual average

N/A 0.03 N/A - N/A If exceeded

24 hours 0.04 0.14 105 - If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year

1 hour 0.25 0.075 665 196 N/A N/A

PM10

Annual arithmetic

mean - - 20 - If exceeded If exceeded

24 hours - - 50 150 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year

PM2.5

Annual arithmetic

mean - - 12 12 If exceeded If exceeded

24 hours - - - 35 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year

Lead

30 day Avg.

- - 1.5 - If equaled or exceeded

N/A

Calendar Quarter

- - - 1.5 N/A N/A

Visibility Reducing Particles

8 hour

Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer

– visibility of ten miles or more.

No Federal Standard

- No Federal Standard

N/A N/A

Sulfates 24 hour - No Federal Standard

25 No Federal Standard

If equaled or exceeded

N/A

Hydrogen Sulfide

1 hour 0.03 No Federal Standard



N/A

Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 No Federal Standard



N/A

Source: CARB, 2016.

The CAA requires non-attainment areas to prepare air quality plans that include strategies for achieving attainment. Air quality plans developed to meet NAAQS are referred to as State Implementation Plans.

3.0 Impact Analysis


States, municipal statistical areas, air basins, and counties that contain areas of non-attainment are required to develop SIPs to outline policies and procedures designed to bring the state, municipal statistical area, air basin, or county into compliance with the NAAQS. The CCAA also requires non-attainment areas, except for those in nonattainment for PM10, to prepare plans that include strategies, which would demonstrate attainment. Thus, just as regions in California have two sets of designations, many regions in California also have two sets of air quality plans: one to meet federal requirements and another to meet state requirements. At the state level, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates mobile emissions sources such as construction equipment, trucks, and automobiles. CARB oversees the activities of regional and county air districts, which are primarily responsible for regulating stationary emissions sources. The Proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) boundaries. The SJVAPCD is the regional agency empowered by CARB to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the County. The SJVAPCD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review activities. Although the SJVAPCD does not have jurisdiction on tribal lands, the SJVAPCD is the regional agency responsible for protecting public health from air pollution in Fresno County. SJVAPCD thresholds of significance are provided in the SJVAPCD’s Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants and are 10 tons per year (tpy) for NOx and ROG emissions, and 15 tpy for PM2.5 emissions. Thresholds of significance for all criteria pollutants are shown in Table 3-2 below.

TABLE 3-2 SJVAPCD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Pollutant Construction & Operational

Emissions (tpy)

CO 100

NOx 10

ROG 10

SOx 27

PM10 15

PM2.5 15

Source: SJVAPCD, 2015.

At the federal level, the General Conformity Rule requires the lead agency to compare estimated emissions of CAPs to the applicable de minimis levels (40 CFR §153[b][1] and [2]). De minimis levels are 10 tpy for NOx, and ROG emissions (the same as the SJVAPCD thresholds provided in Table 3-2) and 100 tpy for PM2.5.

3.0 Impact Analysis


State Implementation Plans (SIPs)

The CAA requires states containing areas with air quality violating the NAAQS to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a SIP. The SIP contains the strategies and control measures that states such as California will use to attain the NAAQS. The SIP is not a single document, but a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs, rules, regulations, and controls. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, rules, and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. Many SIP documents rely on the same control strategies, including federal fleet emission standards for cars and heavy trucks, fuel regulations, and limits on emissions from consumer products. The SJVAPCD developed the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Plan (SJVOP) for the exceedance of the NAAQS, which was adopted November 1994 and published in the Federal Registry in November, 2001. The SJVOP was replaced by three documents which make up the applicable SIP. These document are Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (adopted on October 8, 2004), Clarifications Regarding the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (adopted on August 31, 2008), and Amendment to the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (adopted on October 20, 2005). All of the documents were published in the Federal Registry on March 8, 2010 (USEPA, 2014). The SJVAPCD developed the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and requested redesignation from the EPA. The SJVAPCD proposed a PM2.5 Plan in 2008, with the most recent plan released in 2016 (CARB, 2017c).

Pollutants of Concern

Pollutants of concern are Criteria Air Pollutants that are indicators of regional air quality and are designated as nonattainment by the USEPA. The USEPA has designated 8-hour ozone as extreme nonattainment and PM2.5 as nonattainment under the NAAQS. All other criteria pollutants under the NAAQS are either in attainment or unclassified by the USEPA. Table 3-3 shows the NAAQS attainment status for the SJVAB.

TABLE 3-3

NAAQS ATTAINMENT STATUS FOR SJVAB

Pollutant NAAQS

O3 (8-hour) Nonattainment (extreme)

PM10 Attainment

PM2.5 Nonattainment (moderate)

CO Unclassified/Attainment

NO2 Unclassified/Attainment

SO2 Unclassified/Attainment

Pb Unclassified

Source: SJVAPCD, 2018.

The following is a brief summary of the pollutants of concern:

3.0 Impact Analysis


Ozone

Photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels are the largest source of ground-level ozone. Since photochemical reaction rates depend on the intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, ozone is primarily a summer air pollution problem. As a photochemical pollutant, ozone is formed only during daylight hours under appropriate conditions, but is destroyed throughout the day and night. Ozone is considered a regional pollutant, as the forming reaction occurs over time downwind from the emission sources. Particulate Matter

Particle pollution is a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air. This pollution, also known as particulate matter, is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust particles, and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold spores). Particulate matter is regulated as either PM10 (PM of 10 microns or less in size) or PM2.5

(PM of 2.5 microns or less in size), which are the upper limit size restrictions for reaching deep into the lungs PM10 or reaching the bloodstream PM2.5.

Monitoring Data

Ambient air quality data is collected through a network of air monitoring stations located throughout the SJVAB. Table 3-4 provides a three-year summary listing the highest annual concentrations observed for 8-hour ozone and 24-hour average PM2.5 at the Clovis-N Villa Avenue intersection monitoring station in the City of Clovis. This station was selected because of its relative proximity to the project site.

TABLE 3-4 AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA

Pollutant Standard Monitoring Data by Year

2014 2015 2016

Ozone 8-hour Average:

Highest 8-hour average, National 0.070 ppm 0.103 0.098 0.095

National Violations 82 50 62

Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in size 24-hour Average:

Highest 24-hour average 35 ug/m3

72.8 80.7 50.4

National Violations 40.4 15.4 8.2

Notes: Data is from Clovis-N Villa Avenue monitoring station. ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million. Source: CARB, 2018.

Stationary Sources – Tribal Minor New Source Review (NSR)

The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule of July 2011 created a mandate that minor sources in Indian country wishing to construct after September 2, 2014, must obtain a minor source permit. The Tribal

3.0 Impact Analysis


Minor NSR program applies to both new minor sources and minor modifications to both major and minor projects in attainment and nonattainment areas. NSR programs must comply with the standards and control strategies of the Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) or SIP. If there is not an applicable SIP or TIP, the USEPA issues permits and implements the program. A General Permit under the minor NSR program would be required on tribal trust land if stationary source allowable emissions of regulated pollutants would exceed the thresholds presented in 40 CFR 49.153, Table 1, which are reproduced in Table 3-5 below. This General Permit serves as a preconstruction permit containing limitations and other restrictions specifying the construction, modification, and operation of a minor source. A General Permit under the NSR program allows USEPA to review the stationary source(s) and provide limitations for operation as necessary, resulting in lower operational emissions. As the SJVAB is in nonattainment for ozone (NOx and ROG, ozone precursors) and PM2.5, the nonattainment thresholds apply to these pollutants. All other criteria pollutants would be analyzed using attainment area thresholds. The Tribe will comply with the minor NSR program to further reduce operational emissions from stationary sources.

TABLE 3-5

TRIBAL MINOR NEW SOURCE REVIEW THRESHOLDS

Pollutant Emissions Thresholds for

Attainment Areas (tpy)

Emissions Thresholds for

Nonattainment Areas (tpy)

NOx 10 5

ROGs 5 2

PM 10 5

PM10 5 1

PM2.5 3 0.6

CO 10 5

SO2 10 5

Pb 0.1 0.1

Source: 40 CFR 49.153.

Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive off-Reservation air quality receptor from the project site is the Eagle Springs Golf Course and Country Club and residential lots located immediately south of the project site. The nearest residential home is located approximately 400 feet south of the proposed casino development site. The nearest school is Friant Elementary School, which is approximately 2.5 miles west of the project site and thus would not be affected by the project.

3.0 Impact Analysis



Methodology

The Proposed Project construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) air modeling program. Construction and operation are considered not to overlap and therefore are analyzed separately. Construction assumptions include that construction would last approximately 24 months beginning January 2019 and ending in 2021. The first full year of operation would occur in 2022. To estimate criteria emissions from construction equipment, CalEEMod default construction equipment, plus the addition of site-specific equipment, was used in this analysis. Operational emissions would result from on-site stationary sources (boilers, and emergency generators) and area sources (landscape maintenance and kitchen equipment), as well as indirect sources from electricity use and mobile emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the facility. As the Proposed Project involves the relocation and expansion of the existing Table Mountain Rancheria Casino, this air quality analysis quantifies the net increase in emissions between the existing and new casino operations. New daily trips generated by the Proposed Project are quantified in the TIS provided in Appendix D and were used to determine the mobile emissions resulting from the project. All CalEEMod data tables, including input values, assumptions used, and output values, are detailed in Appendix E. As CalEEMod only quantifies stationary source emissions from natural gas and diesel fuels, the net increase in emissions resulting from the operation of propane-fueled boilers was calculated using the U.S. EPA Potential to Emit Calculator for Boilers and Emergency Engines (Appendix E).

Significance Criteria

The Proposed Project is not subject to state or local jurisdiction and does not involve federal actions that would trigger general conformity review under the Clean Air Act. As discussed in Section 3.3.1 the project site is located in an area that is classified as extreme nonattainment for ozone (NOx and ROG, ozone precursors) and nonattainment for PM2.5 under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A significant impact would occur if the Proposed Project would result in emissions of ozone precursors (ROGs and NOX) at levels that would conflict with or obstruct an applicable air quality plan, violate an air quality standard, or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. To determine the potential for significant off-Reservation air quality impacts, project emissions will be compared to the de minimis levels set forth in 40 CFR 93.153 and the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD shown in Table 3-2 above. These thresholds were developed by the SJVAPCD to determine if a project would conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan, violate or considerable contribute to ambient air quality standards if the project is in non-attainment, expose sensitive receptors to harmful pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors (SJVAPCD, 2015). If project emissions exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds, then a significant off-Reservation impact may occur and mitigation measures would be necessary.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Air Quality Effects

Construction

Construction of the Proposed Project would generate criteria air pollutants from construction equipment (primarily diesel-operated), construction worker automobiles (primarily gasoline-operated), and physical land disturbance. Construction emissions are summarized in Table 3-6, and CalEEMod output files are provided in Appendix E. With the exception of NOx emissions, construction emissions would be below thresholds of significance without mitigation. Because emissions of NOx would exceed established thresholds, this would be a potentially significant off-Reservation impact to air quality. Additionally, due to the proximity of the project site to nearby sensitive receptors, construction emissions of fugitive dust and DPM have the potential to result in adverse effects associated with odor and health risk. This is a potentially significant impact. To reduce construction-related fugitive dust, NOx and DPM emissions, emission control mitigation measures are provided in Section 3.3.3. The mitigation provided in Section 3.3.3 would reduce fugitive dust and DPM emissions from construction equipment by approximately 85 percent, avoiding potentially adverse effects to nearby sensitive receptors.

TABLE 3-6

UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction Year


ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

tons per year

2019 1 11 6 0 2 1

2020 3 6 6 0 1 0

Maximum Year Construction Emissions

3 11 6 0 2 1

SJVAPCD Thresholds1 10 10 100 27 15 15

De minimis levels 10 10 n/a n/a n/a 100

Exceeds Thresholds No Yes No No No No

Note: 1 - SJVAPCD, 2015. Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.2, 2018.

Construction emissions after mitigation measure are shown in Table 3-7. As shown in the table, project emissions would be below thresholds of significance after project mitigation, and therefore, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans, violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, or expose off-Reservation sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With mitigation, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in significant off-Reservation effects associated with the regional air quality environment.

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-7 MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction Year


ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

tons per year

2019 1 9 7 0 1 1

2020 3 2 2 0 0 0

Maximum Year Construction Emissions

3 9 7 0 1 1

SJVAPCD Thresholds1 10 10 100 27 15 15


Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No

Note: 1 - SJVAPCD, 2015. Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.2, 2018.

Operation

Operations of the proposed facilities, including the casino, hotel, conference center/meeting rooms, and events center, would result in direct area and stationary as well as indirect mobile emissions. Indirect mobile emissions are associated with increased vehicle trips to and from the Proposed Project. Direct area and stationary emissions would result from emergency generators, boilers, heating, air conditioning, landscape maintenance, kitchen equipment use, and other combustion sources. As the Proposed Project would result in the closure of the Casino, trip generation rates incorporated into CalEEMod from the TIS have been adjusted to account for existing trips on the roadway network traveling to the Table Mountain Rancheria Casino as determined by traffic counts. Additionally, CalEEMod provides an input for the percentage of diverted and pass-by-trips, which indicate vehicles that were already on the road and decided to make a stop along the way to their original destination. The analysis also assumed that two events at the event center would take place each week, for a total of 104 events per year. The average length of vehicle trips associated with the casino and other project components is expected to be longer than the default trip length values included in CalEEMod. Therefore, project-specific trip length values were developed and are shown in the CalEEMod input tables (provided as Appendix E); these values are used in the following air quality analysis. Appendix E includes additional details regarding CalEEMod inputs as well as the CalEEMod output files. Stationary source emissions would primarily result from emergency generators and boilers. Propane-fueled boilers are used at the existing facility and would be used for proposed facility operations. As CalEEMod does not quantify emissions from propane combustion, the net increase in propane emissions was determined utilizing emission factors and by calculating the difference in boiler capacity between the

3.0 Impact Analysis


existing and proposed facility. Emergency generators would run on diesel fuel and are the only stationary source included in CalEEMod. All operational emissions are summarized in Table 3-8 and output files are provided in Appendix E. Table 3-8 shows that NOx emissions would exceed the thresholds of significance. Although all other criteria pollutant emissions are less than thresholds, the Proposed Project has the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans, contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, or expose off-Reservation sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This would be a potentially significant off-Reservation impact. As air quality is a regional concern of the Tribe, mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce project-related criteria pollutant emissions as shown in Section 3.3.3. With mitigation, the Proposed Project would continue to exceed the 10 pounds per day SJVAPCD significance threshold and federal General Conformity de minimis threshold.

TABLE 3-8 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Emission Sources ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

tons per year

Area1 2 0 0 0 0 0

Mobile1 2 28 29 0 11 3

Stationary

Emergency Generators1 0 2 1 0 0 0

Boilers (Propane)2 1 1 5 0 1 1

Total Emissions 5 31 35 0 12 4

SJVAPCD Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15


Exceed Threshold No Yes No No No No Notes: 1 - CalEEMod.2016.3.2. 2 - Calculated outside of CalEEMod using the U.S. EPA Potential to Emit Calculator for Boilers and Emergency Generators, as the model only allows for natural gas and diesel inputs.

Cumulative

Past, present and future development projects contribute to a regions air quality conditions on a cumulative basis; therefore by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. If a project’s individual emissions contribute toward exceedance of the NAAQS, then the project’s cumulative impact on air quality would be significant. In developing attainment designations for criteria pollutants, the USEPA considers the regions’ past, present and future emission levels. The project site and vicinity is in extreme nonattainment for 8-hour ozone and nonattainment for PM2.5 under the NAAQS; therefore, air

3.0 Impact Analysis


quality in the region has the potential to be cumulatively impacted by the Proposed Project. Mitigation is provided to reduce NOx emissions and minimize criteria air pollutant emissions.

3.3.3 MITIGATION

The Tribe will implement the following construction BMPs, which were incorporated in the CalEEMod air quality model to reduce criteria pollutant emissions: The Tribe shall use Tier 3 construction equipment (with the exception of Tier 3 Scrapers, which

are not widely available), using a minimum of 90 percent of the equipment’s total horsepower, as well as construction equipment with Level 3 diesel particulate filters (DPF)

The Tribe shall use soil stabilizer on unpaved roads. The Tribe shall apply water to exposed construction areas twice a day. The Tribe shall restrict vehicle speeds on the construction site to 15 miles per hour. The Tribe shall restrict construction vehicle idling to five minutes (calculated outside of

CalEEMod). The Tribe shall implement the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of criteria pollutants from operation and mobile sources: The Tribe shall use clean fuel vehicles in the vehicle fleet where practicable, which would reduce

criteria pollutants and GHG emissions. The Tribe shall provide preferential parking for employee vanpools and carpools, which would

reduce criteria pollutants and GHGs. The Tribe shall use low-flow appliances at the proposed facility. The Tribe shall use drought-

tolerant landscaping and provide “Save Water” signs near water faucets. The Tribe shall control criteria pollutants, GHG, and DPM emissions during operation of the

project by requiring all diesel-powered vehicles and equipment be properly maintained and minimizing idling time to five minutes at loading docks when loading or unloading food, merchandise, etc. or when diesel-powered vehicles or equipment are not in use; unless per engine manufacturer’s specifications or for safety reasons more time is required. The Tribe shall employ periodic and unscheduled inspections to accomplish the above mitigation.

Energy-efficient lighting shall be installed throughout the facilities. Dual-level light switching shall be installed in support areas to allow users of the buildings to reduce lighting energy usage when the task being performed does not require all lighting to be on. Day lighting controls shall be installed near windows to reduce the artificial lighting level when natural lighting is available. Controls shall be installed for exterior lighting so it is turned off during the day. Using energy-efficient lighting would reduce the project’s energy usage, thus reducing the project’s indirect GHG emissions.

3.0 Impact Analysis


The Tribe shall install recycling bins throughout the hotel and casino for glass, cans and paper products. Trash and recycling receptacles shall be placed strategically outside to encourage people to recycle. The Tribe will reduce solid waste stream of the facility by 50 percent.

The Tribe shall plant trees and vegetation on site or fund such plantings off site. The addition of photosynthesizing plants would reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), because plants use CO2 for elemental carbon and energy production. Trees planted near buildings would result in additional benefits by providing shade to the building; thus reducing heat absorption, reducing air conditioning needs and saving energy.

The Tribe shall use energy-efficient appliances in the hotel and casino. The Tribe shall provide a bus driver lounge at the facility and adopt and enforce an anti-idling

ordinance for buses, which will discourage bus idling during operation of the project. The Tribe shall implement a voluntary trip reduction program for employees. The selected heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system shall minimize the use of

energy by means of using high efficiency variable speed chillers, high efficiency low emission steam and/or hot water boilers, variable speed hot water and chilled water pumps, variable air volume air handling units, and air-to-air heat recovery where appropriate.

3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS


Topography and Landslides

The project site ranges in elevation from approximately 670 feet amsl to greater than 1,100 feet amsl. Figure 2 provides an aerial map of the project site. Slopes on the majority of the project site range from 9 to 15 percent grades, and slopes in the northeast portion of the site range from 30 to 70 percent grades. The steep slopes in the northern area of the project site create a moderate risk zone for landslides.

Soils

The project site is characterized by mostly well drained and somewhat excessively drained, steep to very steep sandy loams, which have low corrosion ratings to concrete and steel. The northern portion of the project site contains very rocky coarse sandy loams, while the lower areas consist of moderately sloped sandy loams. All soils on the project site are derived from quartz diorite and granitic alluvium, with the exception of TnF which is volcanic breccia residuum. These soils originate from the locally occurring granitic rocks. Within the quartz diorite soils there are a range of textures and slopes present at the project site as illustrated in Table 3-9. A soil survey was done using the Web Soil Survey provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; NRCS, 2017).

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-9 PROJECT SITE SOILS

Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name Hydrologic

Group Drainage

Erosion Rating

Percent of Project Site1

AdF Ahwahnee very rocky coarse sandy loam, 45 to 70 percent slopes

B Well drained Severe 0.0

Hd Hanford sandy loam, benches A Well drained Moderate 8.7

SkB Sesame sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes

C Well drained Moderate 3.2

SkC Sesame sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes

C Well drained Severe 49.0

TnF Toomes extremely cobbly loam, 30 to 70 percent slopes

D Well drained Severe 0.7

VfC Vista coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes

B Well drained Moderate 12.1

VID Vista very rocky coarse sandy loam, shallow, 3 to 30 percent slopes

D Somewhat

excessively drained Severe 4.9

VIF Vista very rocky coarse sandy loam, shallow, 30 to 70 percent slopes

D Somewhat

excessively drained Severe 21.4

Note: 1 – Percentages are approximate and may not total to 100 percent. Source: NRCS, 2017.

Permeability rates for the hydrologic groups listed in the table are as follows: A – high infiltration rate and low runoff potential; B – moderate infiltration rate; C – slow infiltration rate; and D – very slow infiltration rate. Soil Erosion

Soil erosion is the wearing and removal of soil materials from the ground surface and the transportation of these soil materials resulting in deposition elsewhere. Mechanisms of soil erosion include natural phenomenon such as storm water runoff and wind, as well as human activities, such as changes in drainage patterns and removal of vegetation. Factors that influence soil erosion include physical properties of the soil, topography (slope), and annual rainfall and peak intensity. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rates the erosion potential of a map unit by taking all of the above into consideration. The ratings range from “slight” to “very severe”. The erosion ratings of various soils within the project site are provided in Table 3-9.


Construction activities on the project site could result in temporary soil erosion, which can alter the drainage pattern of an area, including on off-Reservation properties, and result in the sedimentation of surface waters if not properly addressed through standard construction specifications. Further, disturbance of the soils could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. Construction activities could create unstable slopes in areas of the project site with steep slopes, which have the potential to affect off-Reservation properties. This is considered a potentially significant

3.0 Impact Analysis


off-Reservation impact. Implementation of BMPs for erosion control and a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for temporary construction impacts, as required by the USEPA, would avoid potential for adverse effects. The BMPs and SWPPP would be implemented according to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity, Order No.99-08-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (General Permit). This mitigation is provided in Section 3.4.3 below.

Cumulative

Cumulative effects associated with geology and soil resources are not expected to occur as a result of future developments in combination with the Proposed Project. Topographic changes may be cumulatively significant if the topography contributes significantly to environmental quality with respect to drainage, habitat, or other values; however, no significant topographic changes would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Local permitting requirements for construction would address regional geotechnical and topographic conflicts, seismic hazards, and resource extraction availability. Approved developments would be required to follow applicable local permitting procedures. In addition, the project and all other developments that disturb one acre or more must comply with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires that BMPs be implemented to address soil erosion, as outlined in Section 3.4.3. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative effects to geology or soils.

3.4.3 MITIGATION

The Tribe shall apply for coverage under USEPA’s NPDES Construction General Permit. Compliance with the permit shall require development of a site-specific SWPPP, which will include requirements for implementation of appropriate erosion and sediment control measures prior to and throughout construction, as described below. The SWPPP shall describe project-specific construction practices, stabilization techniques, and structural BMPs that are to be implemented to prevent erosion and minimize sediment transport. BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired to assure continued performance of their intended function. Reports summarizing the scope of these inspections, the personnel conducting the inspection, the dates of the inspections, major observations relating to the implementation of the SWPPP, and actions taken as a result of these inspections shall be prepared and retained as part of the SWPPP. To minimize the potential for erosion to occur on the project site that would affect off-Reservation properties, the Tribe shall select BMPs, which shall be identified in the SWPPP and implemented during construction. These BMPs shall include but will not be limited to the following:

3.0 Impact Analysis


Stripped areas shall be stabilized through temporary seeding using dryland grasses. Conveyance channels and severe erosion channels shall be mulched or matted to prevent

excessive erosion. Exposed stockpiled soils shall be covered with plastic covering to prevent wind and rain erosion. The construction entrance shall be stabilized by the use of rip-rap, crushed gravel, or other such

material to prevent the track-out of dirt and mud. Construction roadways shall be stabilized through the use of frequent watering, stabilizing

chemical application, or physical covering of gravel or rip-rap. Filter fences shall be erected at all onsite stormwater exit points and along the edge of graded

areas to stabilize non-graded areas and control siltation of onsite stormwater. Dust suppression measures included in Section 3.3.3 shall be implemented to control the

production of fugitive dust and prevent wind erosion of bare and stockpiled soils.

3.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

3.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Climate change is a global phenomenon attributable to the sum of all human activities and natural processes. Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. GHGs include all of the following: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (Health & Safety Code §38505[g]). In addition to natural sources, human activities are exerting a substantial and growing influence on climate by changing the composition of the atmosphere and by modifying the land surface through deforestation and urbanization, and in turn, reducing carbon capture and decreasing albedo (IPCC, 2013). In particular, increased consumption of fossil fuels has substantially increased atmospheric levels of GHGs. Emissions of these gases are attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utilities, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In 2015, transportation generated 39 percent of California’s GHG emissions, followed by the industrial sector (23 percent), electricity generation in state (11 percent), electricity generation imports (8 percent), commercial and residential (11 percent), agriculture and forestry (8 percent), and other sources ( less than 1 percent) (CARB, 2017b). Emissions of CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, among other sources. CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2 include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the world’s ocean. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the USEPA, it is very likely (greater than 95% probability) that human activity is responsible for rising temperatures. The IPCC expects global temperatures to increase another 2 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, depending on how much atmospheric GHG concentrations continue to rise.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Regulatory Setting

Federal CEQ GHG Guidance The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released a Final Guidance memorandum on August 1, 2016 regarding the consideration of climate change effects in NEPA documents (CEQ, 2016). While the 2016 CEQ guidance memorandum has since been withdrawn as of April 5, 2017, following Executive Order 13807, in the absence of replacement guidance, its recommendations have been considered within this EE. The 2016 CEQ guidance advised federal lead agencies to address impacts to and from climate change when assessing cumulative project-level impacts under NEPA. To assess impacts, the guidance stated that federal agencies should quantify direct and indirect emissions of the project alternatives (including the no-action alternative), with the level of effort being proportionate to the scale of the emissions relevant to the NEPA review, as a proxy for assessing potential effects on climate change in a NEPA analysis. According to the 2016 CEQ guidance memorandum, climate change impacts relating to indirect and direct actions concerning the federal action and associated short-term and long-term effects should also be included in the NEPA analysis. The guidance did not establish any particular quantity of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions as "significantly" affecting the quality of the human environment or give greater consideration to the effects of GHG emissions and climate change over other effects on the human environment. However, the guidance did state that agencies should consider reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce action-related GHG emissions or increase carbon sequestration in the same fashion as they consider alternatives and mitigation measures for any other environmental effects. The guidance further stated that climate change effects on the environment and on the proposed project should be considered in the NEPA analysis if the project is considered vulnerable to the effects of climate change such as increasing sea level, drought, high intensity precipitation events, increased fire risk, or ecological change. It was recommended that assessment of such impacts, if applicable, should be conducted with existing information, as the 2016 CEQ memo stated that agencies need not undertake new research or analysis of potential climate change impacts in the proposed action area. State

California has been a leader in outlining and aggressively implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy that is designed to result in a substantial reduction in total statewide GHG emissions in the future. California’s climate change strategy is multifaceted and involves a number of State agencies implementing a variety of State laws and policies. California laws and policies summarized below would assist in reducing GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project. Executive Order S-3-05 Signed on June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 established the following statewide emission reduction targets:

3.0 Impact Analysis


Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010; Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

EO S-3-05 created a “Climate Action Team” or “CAT” headed by the California EPA and including several other State jurisdictional agencies. The CAT is tasked by EO S-3-05 with outlining the effects of climate change on California and recommending an adaptation plan. The CAT is also tasked with creating a strategy to meet the target emission reductions. In April 2006, the CAT published an initial report that accomplished these two tasks. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) Signed on September 27, 2006, AB 32 codifies a key requirement of EO S-3-05: the requirement to reduce Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 tasks CARB with monitoring State sources of GHGs and designing emission reduction measures to comply with the law’s emission reduction requirements. However, AB 32 also continues the CAT’s efforts to meet the requirements of EO S-3-05 and states that the CAT should coordinate overall state climate policy. In order to accelerate the implementation of emission reduction strategies, AB 32 requires that CARB identify a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented relatively quickly. In October 2007, CARB published a list of early action measures that could be implemented and would serve to meet about a quarter of the required 2020 emissions reductions (CARB, 2007). In order to assist CARB in identifying early action measures, the CAT published a report in April 2007 that updated their 2006 report and identified strategies for reducing GHG emissions (CAT, 2007). In the October 2007 report, CARB cited the CAT strategies and other existing strategies that may be utilized in achieving the remainder of the emissions reductions. AB 32 required that CARB prepare a comprehensive “scoping plan” that identifies all strategies necessary to fully achieve the required 2020 emissions reductions. Executive Order S-01-07 Signed on January 18, 2007, EO S-01-07 mandates a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. This target reduction was identified by CARB as one of the AB 32 early action measures in its October 2007 report. Executive Order B-30-15 Signed on April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 sets interim GHG targets of 40 percent below 1990 by 2030, to ensure California will meet its 2050 targets set by AB 32. California’s Scoping Plan and Cap and Trade Program In the 2008 initial Climate Change Scoping Plan, CARB laid out the GHG reductions that needed to be achieved and the types of measures that would be used to reach them. The Plan predicts that under a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario, 2020 GHG emissions would equal 596 million metric tons (MMT)

3.0 Impact Analysis


CO2e. Consequently, compared to the 1990 GHG emissions inventory, emissions would need to be reduced by 169 MMT CO2e in 2020. The initial Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates all CARB and CAT early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both entities, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the role of a cap-and-trade program. Some of the key elements of the Scoping Plan include expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards, achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent, developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions, and establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets. The 2008 Scoping Plan set forth approximately 126 strategies and measures currently under consideration that would ensure a statewide reduction in GHG emissions, most strategies and measures are planning-level measures, or they apply to particular industries. The first update to the 2008 Climate Action Scoping Plan was released in May 2014. The purpose of the update is to identify the next steps for California’s leadership on climate change. The updated Plan outlines the progress California has made to date regarding near-term 2020 GHG limits, such as cleaner and more efficient energy, cleaner transportation, and the CARB’s Cap-and-Trade Program. The 2008 Plan identifies six key areas where further control strategies are needed, which are: energy, transportation (vehicles/equipment, sustainable communities, housing, fuels, and infrastructure), agriculture, water, waste management, and natural and working lands. In 2017, CARB provided a draft Scoping Plan, which provides strategies for achieving California’s 2030 GHG reduction target. The 2017 draft Scoping Plan provides a summary of recent legislation, such as AB 398, EO B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 350, SB 32, SB 1383, etc.). Climate change mitigation policies provided in the draft Scoping Plan include the following: Implementing SB 350 by 2030, which will reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector; Implement Mobile Source Strategy (cleaner technology and fuels), which will reduce GHG

emissions in the transportation sector; Increase stringency of SB 375 (sustainable communities strategy); Develop pricing policies to support low-GHG transportation; Adopt Low Carbon Fuel Standard with and carbon Intensive reduction of 18 percent; Develop regulation and programs to support organic waste landfill reductions; Implement carbon accounting framework for natural and working lands (SB 859); and Implement forest carbon plans.

3.0 Impact Analysis


In addition to new mitigation policies listed above, the 2017 draft Scoping Plan incorporates past policies from both the initial (2008) and first updated (2014) Scoping Plans.


Methodology

Construction and operational transportation, water and wastewater, energy, stationary source, and area GHG emissions resulting from the Proposed Project were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) air modeling program. Off-Reservation effects resulting from the Proposed Project were analyzed consistent with the USEPA’s 2016 CEQ Guidelines.

GHG Emission Effects

Development of the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions related to construction, mobile sources (trips generated by the project), stationary sources (components of the project that directly emit GHGs) from the combustion of propane or diesel in boilers, emergency generators, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, and indirect sources related to electricity (combustion of fuels use to produce electricity), solid waste (solid waste decomposition at the landfill and haul trucks), wastewater processing (decomposition of waste and electric and diesel pumps), and water transport (electricity and diesel pumps). CalEEMod was used to estimate construction, area, energy, mobile, stationary, water and wastewater, and solid waste project-related GHG emissions. Model input and output files are provided in Appendix E. The trip generation rates use to estimate GHG emissions are based on information from the TIS (Appendix D). Table 3-10 provides a breakdown of project-related GHG emissions. GHG emissions resulting from the Proposed Project are primarily indirect (either indirect mobile emissions from delivery, patron, and employee vehicles or indirect off-site electricity generation, waste pickup, water and wastewater transport, etc.). The federal government and the state of California have enacted measures that would reduce GHG emissions from mobile sources, some of which have been accounted for in the air quality model used to estimate mobile emissions. Mitigation measures have been provided in Section 3.5.3 to reduce project-related GHG emissions. Construction mitigation measures include reduced idling of heavy equipment, thereby, reducing CO2 during the construction or the Proposed Project. Operational mitigation measures would reduce indirect GHG emissions from electricity use, water and wastewater transport, and waste transport through the installation of energy efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems, low-flow appliances, drought resistant landscaping, and recycling receptacles. Operational mitigation measures would also reduce indirect mobile GHG emissions by requiring adequate ingress and egress to minimize vehicle idling and preferential parking for vanpools and carpools to reduce project-related trips. Implementation of these mitigation measures is

3.0 Impact Analysis


consistent with the methodology for analyzing climate change presented in the 2016 CEQ Guidance (CEQ, 2016). Therefore, with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures provided in Section 3.5.3, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a significant off-Reservation impacts associated with climate change.

TABLE 3-10 PROJECT-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS

Emission Source Unmitigated Mitigated

GHG Emissions in MT CO2e

Construction

Construction1 1,763 1,5872

Operation

Area 0 0

Energy (Electricity) 2,240 2,222

Mobile 16,049 16,049

Stationary Sources (Propane) 7,448 7,448

Stationary Sources (Emergency Generators)

172 172

Solid Waste 338 338

Water/Wastewater 114 91

Operation Subtotal 26,361 26,343 Total Project-Related GHG Emissions 28,124 27,930

Notes: 1 – Construction-related GHG emissions were amortized over the construction period (2 years)

to determine annual construction emissions. 2 – 10 percent reduction due to minimizing construction equipment idling time to 5 minutes

(calculated outside of CalEEMod) Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, 2018 (Appendix E).

3.5.3 MITIGATION

In order to minimize project-related GHG emissions, the Tribe will implement the mitigation measures listed in Section 3.3.3.

3.6 WATER RESOURCES


Surface Water & Drainage

Floodplain

The project site is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year floodplain. However, immediately adjacent to Millerton Road, south of the project site, is an area within Flood Zone A, which is within the 100-year floodplain. This section of Flood Zone A follows an unnamed tributary of Little Dry Creek. The study area of the unnamed tributary on the

3.0 Impact Analysis


relevant FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) terminates downstream of where the unnamed tributary passes through the Rancheria. Based on extrapolation of the flood areas shown in the FIRM, it is possible that there would be a small flood zone associated with the unnamed tributary and an unnamed black pipe stream within the southern portion of the Rancheria, which could overlap with the southeastern corner of the project site. No flooding problems have been reported on the project site (FEMA, 2009). Regional Watershed

As shown in Figure 9, the majority of the project site is located within the San Joaquin Hydrologic Region, San Joaquin River Hydrologic Unit, and Little Dry Creek Hydrologic Area. The northwestern portion of the project site is within the San Joaquin Hydrologic Region, San Joaquin River Hydrologic Unit, Auberry Hydrologic Area, and Fine Gold Creek Hydrologic Sub-area (Caltrans, 2017b). There are no permanent surface waters on the project site; however, there are several ephemeral drainages and seasonal wetlands located in the southeastern, northeastern, and northwestern regions of the project site created by the sloping and varied topography. Surface waters in the vicinity of the project site include an unnamed tributary of Little Dry Creek and the San Joaquin River, which runs east to west along the south side of Millerton Road in the vicinity of the project site and crosses under Millerton Road and into the Rancheria immediately east of the project site; an unmade black pipe stream, which crosses runs east to west along the north side of Millerton Road and connects with the unnamed tributary to Little Dry Creek just east of the project site (TMR, 2004); Millerton Lake, which is approximately 0.2 miles north of the project site’s northern boundary at its closest point; an unnamed United States Geological Survey (USGS) blue line stream that is a tributary of Winchell Creek and Millerton Lake and is located approximately 0.3 miles north of the project site; Tribal Pond, an approximately 0.6-acre impoundment of the unnamed USGS blue line stream located approximately 0.3 miles north of the project site within the Rancheria; man-made ponds within the golf course residential development south of the project site and Millerton Road; and various seasonal drainages that collect run-off during storm events. Site Drainage

Stormwater from the project site generally drains south, with a small area located in the northern portion of the project site that drains north toward Millerton Lake. Runoff in the southern area of the project site converges at four drainage culverts along the southern boundary. There is also a box culvert at the northwest corner of Millerton Road and Sky Harbor Road near the southeast corner of the project site. The four drainage culverts and the box culvert transmit surface water south under Millerton Road into the pond located on the golf course, and into the unnamed tributary which connects with Little Dry Creek and the San Joaquin River (Appendix C). Surface Water Quality

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters within its borders that do not meet water quality standards and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these impaired waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can

Millerton LakeMillerton Lake

LakeLake

Kerckhoff LakeKerckhoff Lake

San Joaquin RiverSan Joaquin River

Dry Creek

Litte Dr y Creek

Big Sandy Cre ek

Big Dry Creek

Fine Gold Creek

W illow C reek

Dog Creek

Fria nt Kern Canal

Sales

Creek

Stre am

Li ttle Dry Creek

North

Fork

Little Dry

Creek

San Joaquin RiverLitt

leDr y Creek

Fr iant Kern CanalStream

SanJ

oaquin River

Figure 9Watershed Map

SOURCE: USGS National Hydrological Dataset, 2011; California Interagency Watershed Map of 1999, 2006; AES, 5/2/2018


LEGEND

Fresno Co.

Mono Co.

Madera Co. Inyo Co.

Mariposa Co.

Tuolumne Co.

San JoaquinHydrologic Unit

San JoaquinHydrologic Region

Project Site/Tribal Trust Land

San Joaquin Hydrologic UnitSan Joaquin Hydrologic Region

Auberry Hydrologic AreaLittle Dry Creek Hydrologic Area

0 1 2

Miles

3.0 Impact Analysis


receive while still meeting water quality standards. Millerton Lake is identified by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as a Category 5A water body for mercury, meaning that the mercury level standard for this water body is not met and a TMDL is required, but has not yet been completed (SWRCB, 2011). A 2004 Water Quality Assessment Report prepared for the Tribe identified seepage from operational and abandoned septic systems, soil erosion from regional construction activities, and runoff from existing parking facilities and material storage areas as the primary potential sources of contamination for surface waters on and adjacent to the Rancheria (TMR, 2004). The Report concluded that the three aforementioned unnamed tributaries located on and/or adjacent to the Rancheria only partially support their tribally-designated uses as riparian habitat and cultural/ceremonial grounds due to quality impairments associated with these contaminant sources (TMR, 2004). As described in Section 2.1, the on-Reservation wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) treats an average day flow of approximately 125,000 gallons per day (GPD) of wastewater and a peak day flow of approximately 225,000 GPD (Appendix B). The WWTP receives wastewater flows from several sources on the Rancheria, including the existing casino facility, tribal residences, and a church. Treated wastewater from the WWTP is stored and used to meet fire flow requirements at the existing casino facility; for landscape irrigation of approximately one acre of landscaping surrounding the WWTP, cemetery land, and other buildings within the tribal property; and for dust control (Appendix B). Any effluent not reused for these purposes is intermittently discharged to the aforementioned unnamed tributary of Little Dry Creek (Appendix B). Discharged wastewater is treated to comply with the USEPA NPDES permit (permit number CA0084280) issued in June 2015 for the Table Mountain Rancheria WWTP. In late 2005 and early 2006, effluent discharged by the Tribe to the unnamed tributary of Little Dry Creek violated the NPDES permit limits for total residual chlorine, chronic toxicity, total suspended solids, and turbidity. The violations were determined to be a result of the use of bromine to clean water in cooling towers at the Casino; that practice was discontinued and the Casino staff now uses peroxide to disinfect the cooling towers (USEPA, 2010). In 2005, there were also violations of NPDES permit limits for total coliform bacteria and Biological Oxygen Demand – 5 Day due to a lack dissolved oxygen. The WWTP’s dissolved oxygen meter was subsequently recalibrated and has been calibrated on a monthly basis since the 2005 violation, and the Tribe now uses chlorine to eliminate coliform bacteria within its treated water storage tanks prior to discharge (USEPA, 2010). Between 2005 and 2009, discharge from the WWTP to the unnamed tributary also exhibited exceedances of permitted levels of average daily discharge of ammonia and maximum daily discharge of chlorine (USEPA, 2010). Between 2012 and 2015, the discharge to the unnamed tributary met all permitted effluent limits (USEPA, 2015). Since the WWTP’s current NPDES permit took effect on August 1, 2015, there have been no violations with the exception of two overdue discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) in March 2016; no exceedances of permitted effluent limits have occurred since the current permit has been active (USEPA, 2018b).

3.0 Impact Analysis


Surface Water Levels

As described in Section 2.1, the average water demand of the existing casino is approximately 148,226 GPD (Appendix B). This water demand is supplied through the Tribe’s water system, which is described in Section 2.1. Raw water is conveyed from Millerton Lake to the Rancheria through Fresno County Service Area 34 (CSA 34) pump and pipeline infrastructure and treated at a water treatment plant (WTP) operated by the Tribe within tribal trust land in the northwestern portion of the project site. The WTP, which also provides potable water to tribal offices and residences on the Rancheria in addition to the existing casino facility, experiences a total average day potable water demand of approximately 179,000 GPD and a peak day demand of approximately 321,000 GPD (Appendix B) As described in Section 2.2.4, the Tribe has been entering into annual agreements with the Madera Irrigation District (Madera ID) to receive via CSA 34 infrastructure up to 100 acre-feet per year (AFY; approximately 89,000 GPD) of Madera ID’s Soquel Water that enters Millerton Lake (Appendix B). The agreement for 100 AFY of Madera ID’s Soquel Water has been renewed on an annual basis for approximately 15 years. Madera ID’s Soquel water originates in the North Fork of Willow Creek, a tributary of Willow Creek. Willow Creek joins the San Joaquin River upstream of Kerckhoff Lake and Millerton Lake approximately 15 miles northeast of the project site. The Soquel water can either be diverted from the North Fork of Willow Creek to Nelder Creek and the Fresno River watershed via the Soquel Ditch, or it can be allowed to flow into Millerton Lake via Willow Creek and the San Joaquin River. As with other water diverted from Millerton Lake, the Soquel water can be pumped through CSA 34 infrastructure and treated at the Tribe’s on-site WTP.

Groundwater

Groundwater Levels

The project site is covered in the Southern Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan, and is outside of a designated groundwater basin. Within the Southern Sierra IRWM planning area, groundwater conditions typically consist of fractured granite sources with limited lateral movement and low yields due to the very low storativity and highly variable transmissivity of the soils (PPCG, 2014). The majority of the project site contains three overlapping aquifer zones. The first layer is made up of narrow zones of shallow alluvium. This zone is very limited in its extent and depth. The second zone, which extends over most of the region, is made up of weathered granitic bedrock and associated soils. The weathered granitic zones range from approximately 30-100 feet deep. Both the first and second zones have fair to good porosity and permeability. The third aquifer zone is the main water-producing unit with underlying granitic bedrock that extends up to over 1,000 feet deep. Precipitation and stream flow are the primary sources of recharge to the aquifer (TMR, 2004). There are three active and four inactive groundwater wells on the project site. The three active wells have capacities of approximately 25.5, 65.4, and 74.5 gallons per minute (Rodriguez, 2014). Prior to the construction of the WTP on the project site and the acquisition of water from Millerton Lake through CSA 34 infrastructure, the wells were used to supply water to the existing casino and other facilities on

3.0 Impact Analysis


the Rancheria; however, they are currently used only for stand-by and emergency purposes (Appendix B). As described in Section 2.2.4, the Tribe has an agreement to introduce, store, and convey up to 600 AFY of groundwater pumped from two active wells at the Flyin’ J Ranch, owned by the Tribe and located approximately 13 miles north of the project site, and diverted via pipelines to Kerckhoff Lake, a reservoir on the San Joaquin River upstream of Millerton Lake. The Flyin’ J Ranch groundwater is allowed to flow from Kerckhoff Lake into Millerton Lake, where it can be pumped through the CSA 34 pipeline infrastructure to the Tribe’s on-site WTP (USBR, 2016). The Tribe’s diversion of up to 600 AFY of Flyin’ J Ranch water through CSA 34 infrastructure occurs under a 5-year Warren Act Contract (Contract Number 15-WC-20-4686) that is set to expire in February 2020; however, the Tribe is in the process of negotiating a new 25-year Warren Act Contract (Contract Number 18-WC-20-5284) with the Bureau of Reclamation. Groundwater Quality

The quality of groundwater from a fractured granitic bedrock aquifer is typically very good. Sources of poor groundwater quality include failing or failed septic tanks, improperly managed rangeland, improperly sealed wells, and leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs; PPCG, 2014). One currently inactive shallow well in the southeast corner of the project site experienced elevated nitrate levels in the early and mid-2000s, which was potentially the result of fertilizer-contaminated runoff from the golf course south of Millerton Road (TMR, 2004). Other now inactive wells on the project site did not experience similar increases in nitrate levels (TMR, 2004).


Surface Water & Drainage

Floodplain

As described above, the project site is located entirely outside of any FEMA-designated 100-year or 500-year floodplain, and there have been no flooding issues reported on the project site. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse off-Reservation impacts related to flooding or alterations to a floodplain. Construction Impacts

Construction activities associated with implementation of the Proposed Project would include ground disturbing activities such as clearing and grubbing, mass grading, and excavation, which could lead to erosion of topsoil. Erosion from construction sites can increase sediment discharge to surface waters during storm events, thereby degrading downstream water quality. Construction activities could also include the routine use of potentially hazardous construction materials such as concrete washings, oil, and grease, which may spill onto the ground and be dissolved in stormwater. Discharges of pollutants, which include grease, oil, fuel and sediments, to surface waters from construction activities and accidents could adversely affect the quality of off-Reservation surface water resources. The measures previously listed in

3.0 Impact Analysis


Section 3.4.3 would reduce the potentially significant impacts of Proposed Project construction on surface water quality to less-than-significant levels. Stormwater Runoff

Construction of the Proposed Project would introduce approximately 28.0 acres of impervious surfaces to the project site, including roadways and driveways, rooftops, and surface parking areas (Appendix C). The introduction of impervious surfaces would increase the amount of stormwater runoff generated during a 100-year, 24-hour precipitation event from approximately 20.4 acre feet (AF) to approximately 25.1 AF, an increase of 4.7 AF relative to pre-development conditions. As described in Section 2.2.7 and the Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix C), the Proposed Project involves the construction of four stormwater retention basins in the southern portion of the project site. The locations of the proposed retention basins are shown in Exhibit 2 of Appendix C. The four retention basins would have a combined total storage capacity of approximately 5.0 AF, and thus would be capable of retaining the 4.7 AF of differential runoff (the difference between pre- and post-development runoff) resulting from the Proposed Project during a 100-year, 24-hour event. Because the quantity and direction of off-site stormwater runoff would not be substantively different from pre-development conditions with the construction of these retention basins, the Proposed Project would not have significant adverse off-Reservation impacts related to stormwater flow. Implementation of the BMPs listed in Section 3.4.3 and Section 3.6.3 would prevent surface runoff from the project site from having significant adverse effects on off-Reservation surface water quality. Operational Impacts

As described in Section 2.2.4 and in Appendix B, the Proposed Project would have a net average day water demand of approximately 184,000 GPD and a peak day demand of approximately 331,000 GPD, which would increase the combined average day demand of existing and proposed facilities to approximately 363,000 GPD and would increase the combined peak day demand to 652,000 GPD. As described in additional detail below and in Section 2.2.4, the Tribe has rights to up to 600 AFY of groundwater that is pumped at the Flyin’ J Ranch and conveyed to Millerton Lake. The Flyin’ J Ranch groundwater would be pumped from Millerton Lake to the Tribe’s WTP via CSA 34 infrastructure to serve the Proposed Project. The potential impacts to surface water resources of pumping up to 1,800 AFY of groundwater from Flyin’ J Ranch and storing and conveying it within CVP facilities were previously analyzed in EA-14-019 and FONSI-14-019; the potential impacts to surface water levels and quality were determined to be less than significant. In EA-16-007 it was determined that the direct diversion of Flyin’ J Ranch water from Millerton Lake via CSA 34 infrastructure to the Tribe’s WTP for use on the Rancheria would not have any additional potentially significant impacts on surface water resources (USBR, 2016). Therefore, because the Proposed Project does not introduce any other potential impacts to surface water resources related to the Flyin’ J Ranch water that have not been previously

3.0 Impact Analysis


evaluated, the use of up to 600 AFY of Flyin’ J Ranch water to supply the Proposed Project would not have any significant adverse effects on off-Reservation surface water resources. The net increase in potable water demand caused by the Proposed Project may also be supplied in part by the up to 100 AFY of Soquel water that the Tribe has historically received from Madera ID (refer to Section 3.6.1) under annual agreements. The potential impacts to water resources of conveying and storing within Central Valley Project (CVP) facilities up to 500 AFY of Madera ID Soquel water, including both the 100 AFY of Soquel water to which the Tribe currently has access and the up to 400 AFY of water for which it is negotiating (refer to Section 2.2.4), were previously analyzed in a final Environmental Assessment (EA-11-016) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI; FONSI-11-106). The potential impacts to water resources of directly diverting the up to 500 AFY of Madera ID Soquel water from Millerton Lake to the Tribe’s WTP via CSA 34 infrastructure were previously analyzed in a different Environmental Assessment (EA-16-007 and FONSI-16-007). Because the environmental effects of conveying up to 500 AFY of Madera ID Soquel water to the Tribe’s WTP for use on the Rancheria have already been analyzed and determined to be less than significant, and because the specific use of the Madera ID Soquel water to supply the Proposed Project does not introduce any other potential impacts to surface water supplies that have not been previously evaluated, the use of up to 100 AFY of the Madera ID Soquel water to supply the Proposed Project would not have any significant adverse effects on off-Reservation surface water resources. The BMPs described in Section 3.6.3 would further reduce the Proposed Project’s impacts on surface water levels. As described in Section 2.2.5, implementation of the Proposed Project would cause a net increase in average day wastewater flows of approximately 129,000 GPD and a net increase in peak day flows of approximately 232,000 GPD, increasing the total combined average day wastewater flows of existing and proposed facilities to approximately 254,000 GPD and the peak day wastewater flows to approximately 457,000 GPD (Appendix B). Wastewater generated at Proposed Project facilities would be treated at the Tribe’s WWTP and the treated effluent would continue to be used for dust control, fire suppression, and landscape irrigation, including irrigation of the project site. Treated effluent not used for these purposes would continue to be discharged to the unnamed tributary of Little Dry Creek under the terms of the Tribe’s current NPDES permit. The current permit does not include limitations on the amount of treated effluent that can be discharged to the unnamed tributary (Appendix B). As described in Section 2.1, the existing WWTP has an average daily capacity of 500,000 GPD and a maximum daily capacity of 1,500,000 GPD, which would be adequate to treat the increased average and peak day wastewater flows resulting from the Proposed Project. Wastewater processed at the WWTP would continue to be treated to tertiary treatment standards as defined under Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR; USEPA, 2015). Wastewater treated to State tertiary standards is deemed suitable by the State of California for the irrigation of food crops, parks and playgrounds, and residential landscaping, as well as for any other irrigation use not specified or prohibited in Title 22 CCR. Additionally, as noted in Section 3.6.1, wastewater treated at the WWTP and

3.0 Impact Analysis


discharged to the unnamed tributary between August 2015 and March 2018 has met all effluent limits specified in the current NPDES permit. Therefore, based on the high quality standard to which the wastewater would be treated and the adherence of recently discharged effluent to all limits specified in the WWTP’s NPDES permit, the continued use of treated effluent for dust control, fire suppression, and landscape irrigation on the Rancheria and its intermittent discharge to the unnamed tributary of Little Dry Creek would not cause any significant adverse effects to off-Reservation surface water resources.

Groundwater

Groundwater Levels

As described in Appendix B, the Tribe has rights to up to 600 AFY of groundwater pumped from the Flyin’ J Ranch and piped to Kerckhoff Lake. Under the Proposed Project, this water would be diverted from Millerton Lake to the Tribe’s WTP via CSA 34 pump and pipeline infrastructure and would supply a portion of the Proposed Project’s potable water demand. The potential impacts to groundwater resources of pumping up to 1,800 AFY of groundwater from the Flyin’ J Ranch and conveying and storing this groundwater within CVP facilities were previously analyzed in EA-14-019 and FONSI-14-019, as were the potential impacts to groundwater resources of directly diverting up to 600 AFY of Flyin’ J Ranch water from Millerton Lake to the Tribe’s WTP via CSA 34 infrastructure (refer to EA-16-007 and FONSI-16-007). In EA-14-019 it was concluded that extraction of up to 1,800 AFY of groundwater at the Flyin’ J Ranch and conveyance and storage of that water within CVP facilities would not cause direct or cumulative impacts to groundwater quality, but had the potential to adversely affect groundwater levels and neighboring wells. Groundwater monitoring requirements were proposed to reduce the effects of that action to less-than-significant levels (USBR, 2015). In EA-16-007 it was determined that direct diversion of Flyin’ J Ranch water from Millerton Lake via CSA 34 infrastructure to the Tribe’s WTP for use on the Rancheria would not have any additional potentially significant impacts on groundwater levels (USBR, 2016). The introduction of impervious surfaces to the project site as a result of development of the Proposed Project has the potential to impede groundwater recharge by preventing the percolation of surface waters to the underlying aquifer. However, large areas of the project site would remain landscaped and undeveloped, and stormwater runoff captured in the proposed retention basins would be allowed to percolate to the groundwater table. The continued use of tertiary treated recycled water from the Tribe’s WWTP for irrigation on the project site and elsewhere on the Rancheria would also contribute to groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s effects on groundwater recharge would be less-than-significant. Because no additional extraction of groundwater beyond what is described in EA-16-007 is planned as part of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project itself would not cause any potentially significant off-Reservation impacts related to groundwater levels. No additional mitigation specific to the Proposed Project is required, though the BMPs described in Section 3.6.3 would further reduce the Proposed Project’s impacts on groundwater levels.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Groundwater Quality

As described above, development of the Proposed Project would include the routine use of potentially hazardous construction materials, which have the potential to percolate to shallow groundwater during construction activities and result in a potentially significant impact to groundwater quality. During operation, stormwater runoff from the Proposed Project facilities could flush trash, debris, oil, sediment, grease, and fertilizer that could potentially collect on impervious surfaces and landscaped areas into the proposed retention basins, where these pollutants could percolate into the underling groundwater. The measures described in Section 3.4.3 and Section 3.6.3 would reduce the potentially significant off-Reservation groundwater quality impacts of the Proposed Project to less-than-significant levels. As described above, wastewater processed at the Tribe’s WWTP is treated to State tertiary standards, and the quality of any tertiary recycled water applied at the surface is likely to further improve by the time it percolates to the underlying aquifer due to the filtering effect of soils. Therefore, off-Reservation impacts to groundwater quality resulting from irrigation with or the discharge of tertiary treated wastewater would be less than significant.

Cumulative

Cumulative effects associated with geology and soil resources are not expected to occur as a result of future developments in combination with the Proposed Project. All differential runoff resulting from a 100-year, 24-hour precipitation events would be retained on-site; wastewater from the Proposed Project would be treated at the Tribe’s existing WWTP located on the Rancheria; all potable water for the Proposed Project would come from sources to which the Tribe currently has exclusive rights; and all raw water would be conveyed to the Rancheria from Millerton Lake via CSA 34 infrastructure and treated at the Tribe’s existing WTP located on the project site. The direct effects of the Proposed Project on water resources would either be less than significant or would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the implementation of the measures described in Section 3.4.3 and Section 3.6.3. Other regional developments in the vicinity of the project site would be required to incorporate adequate stormwater control infrastructure and BMPs into their construction practices and project design. The combined measures for all these projects would ensure that cumulative impacts to off-Reservation surface water resources and stormwater drainage would be less than significant. Additionally, approved developments would be required to follow applicable local permitting procedures and would be required to contribute to the funding of any necessary improvements or additions to County water supply infrastructure through the payment of development fees and property taxes.

3.6.3 MITIGATION

In order to minimize potentially significant adverse effects resulting from increased stormwater runoff and decreased water quality in off-Reservation surface water features and groundwater, the following BMPs will be implemented in addition to those listed in Section 3.4.3:

3.0 Impact Analysis


The proposed surface parking lots and driveways would be designed and constructed so that stormwater runoff generated on the parking lot would be directed into storm drains that would subsequently direct the flow into the proposed retention basins.

Bioswales and pervious surfaces will be incorporated throughout the project design and parking areas to reduce stormwater run-off rates and filter pollutants from stormwater.

The Tribe shall adjust landscape irrigation based on weather conditions, reducing irrigation during wet weather to prevent excessive runoff.

Fertilizer use shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary and shall be adjusted for the nutrient levels in the water used for irrigation. Fertilizer shall not be applied within 24 hours of a precipitation event predicted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In order to further reduce the Proposed Project’s less-than-significant impacts to off-Reservation surface and groundwater levels, the following BMP is recommended: The Tribe shall implement water conservation measures, including but not limited to use of low

flow faucets and showerheads, recycled water for toilets, and voluntary towel re-use by guests in the hotel; use of low-flow faucets, recycled water for toilets, and pressure washers and brooms instead of hoses for cleaning, in public areas and the casino; use of garbage disposal on-demand, re-circulating cooling loop for water cooled refrigeration and ice machines where possible, and service of water to customers on request, in restaurants; and use of recycled and/or gray water for cooling.

3.7 NOISE


Introduction

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies, compared with of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements.

3.0 Impact Analysis


An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. However, community noise varies continuously over a period because of the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day is the addition of short-duration, single-event noise sources, such as aircraft flyovers, passing vehicles, sirens, or similar sources, all of which are readily identifiable to the individual. Human reaction to new noises is typically compared to the ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise levels, the following relationships occur: except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; a change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response

would be expected; and a 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause

adverse response. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, but rather, logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources each produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 9 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions, topography and type of ground surfaces, noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noise, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate, approximately 4 to 6 dBA.

Regulations

Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides construction noise level thresholds in its Construction Noise Handbook, 2006, which are provided in Table 3-11. The FHWA establishes Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land uses which have been categorized based upon activity. Land uses are categorized on the basis of their sensitivity to noise, as indicated in Table 3-12. Table 3-12 provides standards which may be considered applicable to the Proposed Project. Activity Category B would apply to the nearest sensitive noise receptors to the project site.

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-11 FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE THRESHOLDS

Noise Receptor Locations and Land-Uses

Daytime (7 am - 6 pm) Evening (6 pm - 10 pm) Nighttime (10 pm - 7 am)

dBA, Leq1

Noise-Sensitive Locations: (residences, Institutions, Hotels, etc.)

78 or Baseline + 5 (whichever is louder)

Baseline + 5 Baseline + 5 (if Baseline < 70) or

Baseline + 3 (if Baseline > 70)

Commercial Areas: (Businesses, Offices, Stores, etc.)

83 or Baseline + 5 None None

Industrial Areas: (factories, Plants, etc.) 88 or Baseline + 5 None None

Notes: 1 - Leq thresholds were empirically determined (FHWA, 2006). Source: FHWA, 2006.

TABLE 3-12 FEDERAL NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL DECIBELS

Activity Category

Activity Criteria Evaluation Location

Activity Category Description Leq (h), dBA1

A 57 Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B2 67 Exterior Residential

C2 67 Exterior

Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails and trail crossings.

D 52 Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios.

E2 72 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities not included in A-D or F.

F -- -- Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electricity), and warehousing.

G -- -- Undeveloped lands that are not permitted

Notes: 1 – Hourly A-weighted sound level, decibels (dBA). 2 – Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. Source: FHWA, 2010.

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) Noise Standards

The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) provides guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from transportation operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these criteria have been applied to other sources of noise. The FICON noise threshold is generally applied to transportation noise sources, such as traffic noise. Table 3-13 provides the FICON noise thresholds as incremental

3.0 Impact Analysis


increases over the ambient noise level. The rationale for the FICON criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause annoyance.

TABLE 3-13 SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE

Ambient Noise Level Without Project, Ldn

Increase Required for Significant Impact

<60 dB +5.0 dB or more

60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more

>65 dB +1.5 dB or more

Source: FICON, 1992.

Fresno County Noise Standards

Because the project site is located on trust land, the Tribe is not subject to the County noise standards. The County standards, however, are relevant to assessing the noise-related off-Reservation effects of the project. The County General Plan applies the FICON noise thresholds (listed above) to roadway improvement projects (refer to Policy HS-G.7). The Fresno County Noise Control Ordinance provides the applicable noise standards in Table 3-14 below.

TABLE 3-14 FRESNO COUNTY EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL THRESHOLDS

Category Minutes Per Any One-

Hour Time Period

Noise Level Standard (dBA)

Day (7 am to 10 pm) Night (10 pm to 7 am)

Exterior

1 30 50 45

2 15 55 50

3 5 60 55

4 1 65 60

5 0 70 65

Interior

1 5 45 35

2 1 50 40

3 0 55 45

Source: Fresno County Code §8.40.040.

In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in Table 3-14, the applicable standard shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level. The Fresno County Code indicates that “Noise sources associated with construction, provided such activities do not take place before six a.m. or after nine p.m. on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or

3.0 Impact Analysis


before seven a.m. or after five p.m. on Saturday or Sunday” are exempt from the noise level thresholds (Fresno County Code §8.40.060).

Existing Ambient Noise Levels

The land surrounding the project site is rural in nature consisting of open space, isolated residential developments, agriculture, and commercial land uses. The current ambient noise environment is dominated by traffic noise generated from vehicles traveling along Millerton Road. There are approximately 680 weekend PM peak hour trips on Millerton Road in the vicinity of the project site (Appendix D). Existing noise levels were measured at locations adjacent to sensitive noise receptors and where potential future development-related noise has the potential to raise the ambient noise level (refer to Figure 10). Measurement equipment consisted of Quest Sound Pro SE/DL sound level meters. An acoustical calibrator was used to calibrate the sound level meter before and after use. All instrumentation satisfies the Type II (precision) requirements. As shown in Table 3-15, a measurement at Site A was completed over 24-hours and shows the ambient noise levels on the project site. Noise measurements at sites 1, 2, 4, and 5 were completed over a 15-minute period and show the traffic noise levels along Millerton, Sky Harbor, and Winchell Cove Roads. The noise measurement at Site 3 was completed over an approximately 10-hour period and provides PM peak hour traffic noise levels along Millerton Road. The noise measurement output files are provided as Appendix F.

TABLE 3-15 SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR AND 15-MINUTE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

Site Date Start Time End Time Noise Source Receptor Measured Noise Level (dBA Leq)

A 4/29/14 - 4/30/14 1:50 PM 1:50 PM Project site Residences 38.2

1 4/30/14 11:50 AM 12:05 PM Traffic Noise on Sky Harbour Road Residences 55.5

2 4/30/14 11:23 AM 11:39 AM Traffic Noise on Millerton Road Residences 59.1

3 4/29/14 - 4/30/14 2:54 PM 12:44 AM Traffic Noise on Millerton Road Residences 65.5

4 4/30/14 12:13 PM 12:28 PM Traffic Noise on Millerton Road Residences 52.5

5 4/30/14 12:39 PM 12:54 PM Traffic Noise on Winchell Cove Road Residences 46.4

Source: Appendix F.

There are currently no vibration sources on the 238-acre project site.

Sensitive Receptors

Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes,

Sky H

arbou

r Rd

Millerton Rd

M I L L E R T O N L A K E

RdWi

nche

ll Cov

e

3

A

5

41

2

Figure 10Noise Measurement Locations

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial photograph, 8/7/2017; AES, 5/7/2018


Project Site/Tribal Trust Land24-Hour Noise Measurement15-Minute Noise Measurement8-Hour Noise Measurement

0 500 1,000

Feet

LEGEND

3.0 Impact Analysis


auditoriums, parks, and other outdoor recreation areas generally are considered more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses. The nearest sensitive off-Reservation noise receptor from the project site is the Eagle Springs Golf Course and Country Club and residential lots located immediately south of the project site. The nearest residential home is located approximately 400 feet south of the proposed casino development site and approximately 650 feet south of the nearest portion of the development site where blasting and rock crushing activities would occur. Additional noise sensitive receptors along Millerton Road include various residential subdivisions and the Millerton Lake State Recreation area. Winchell Cove Marina is located approximately 0.5 miles north of the development footprint. The nearest school is Friant Elementary School, which is more than 2.5 miles west of the project site and thus would not be affected by the project. There are no other off-Reservation sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.


Significance Criteria

Construction noise impacts will be measured against the federal construction noise standard (78 dBA for daytime noise). Operational noise impacts will be measured against the County residential standards for road projects, and the FICON standards for changes in the ambient noise level. Therefore, for this analysis, if transportation noise attributable to the Proposed Project increases the ambient off-Reservation noise level to a noise level greater than 65.5 dBA (the highest measured ambient noise level along Millerton Road), or if off-Reservation operational noise from the Proposed Project increases the ambient off-Reservation noise level by 1.5 dBA, a potentially significant off-Reservation impact would occur.

Construction Noise

Construction of the Proposed Project would consist of ground clearing, erection of foundations and buildings, and finishing work. As stated in the Section 3.7.1, stationary point noise sources attenuate at a rate of 6 to 9 dBA per doubling of distance from the source of the noise. An attenuation factor of 6 dBA per doubling of distance is appropriate given the topography and lack of ground cover on and in the vicinity of the project site. Removal of hard rock from the project site through dynamite blasting, as described in Section 2.2.8, would generate a noise level of approximately 94 dBA at 50 feet. Using an attenuation factor of 6 dBA Leq per doubling of distance, the maximum noise level at the nearest sensitive noise receptor (650 feet from areas of blasting), would be less than 76 dBA Leq, which is less than the FHWA construction threshold of 78 dBA, Leq. Additionally, as described in Section 2.2.8, all areas where blasting would occur would be topped with a layer of pre-excavated native earth to a depth of approximately 2 to 3 feet above the top of the exposed hard rock, which would lessen the noise and vibration caused when the dynamite ignites. Noise associated with other construction activities on the project site, including the operation of dozers, tractors, and scrapers, would generate a noise level of approximately 85 dBA at 50 feet (FHWA, 2006). Using an attenuation factor of 6 dBA Leq per doubling of distance, the maximum noise level at the nearest sensitive noise receptor (400 feet from areas of

3.0 Impact Analysis


construction equipment operation), would be approximately 67 dBA Leq, which is less than the FHWA construction threshold of 78 dBA, Leq. Therefore, effects to off-Reservation sensitive noise receptors from construction noise are considered less than significant. However, Section 3.7.3 includes mitigation to ensure construction times comply with the Fresno County Code and BMPs to further reduce construction noise levels. Construction Traffic Noise

As described in Section 3.9.2, construction of the Proposed Project would result in a maximum of 449 worker trips and 175 material haul trips per day (refer to Appendix E) being added to Millerton Road. Material haul trips would not occur during peak traffic hours. While the vast majority of worker trips would also occur outside of the peak traffic hour, to be conservative it is assumed that all 449 daily worker trips would occur within the PM peak traffic hour. The addition of 449 construction worker trips to Millerton Road would cause the ambient noise level at the nearest off-Reservation sensitive receptor (a private residence located approximately 50 feet south of Millerton Road between Marina Drive and Winchell Cove Road) to increase by approximately 2.2 dBA during the weekday PM peak traffic hour, from 52.0 dBA Leq (refer to Table 3-16) to 54.2 dBA Leq. Because the increase in noise levels associated with construction vehicle traffic would be less than 5.0 dBA Leq and the resulting ambient noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor would not exceed the FHWA construction noise threshold of 78.0 dBA Leq for residential uses (refer to Table 3-11), the impacts of construction traffic on the off-Reservation ambient noise environment would not be significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operation Traffic Noise

The level of traffic noise depends on: l) the volume of the traffic, 2) the speed of the traffic, and 3) the number of trucks in the flow of the traffic. It is not anticipated that speed in the vicinity of the project site or the mix of trucks in the traffic would change during the operational phase; however, with the implementation of the Proposed Project, traffic volumes would increase. The effects to the ambient noise environment due to changes in the traffic volume on Millerton Road resulting from the Proposed Project are shown in Table 3-16. A discussion of the potential increases in traffic noise levels along affected roadways is provided below: Millerton Road

The distance from the nearest off-Reservation noise sensitive receptors to the shoulder of the five segments of Millerton Road that provide access to the Proposed Project are shown in Table 3-16. The ambient noise level at a distance approximately 10 feet from Millerton Road is 65.5 dBA Leq (based on the noise level measurements at Site A; refer to Appendix F and Figure 10). However, the estimated ambient noise level does not exceed 60.0 dBA Leq at any of the sensitive receptors closest to the five segments of Millerton Road. Therefore, the FICON significance standard of a 5.0 dB increase or greater applies (refer to Table 3-13), as well as the NAC of 67.0 dBA Leq for residential uses (refer to Table 3-12). As shown in Table 3-16, the changes in traffic on the five segments of Millerton Road resulting

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-16 PROPOSED PROJECT ROAD SEGMENT TRAFFIC VOLUME AND NOISE LEVEL CHANGES

Road Segment

Distance to Nearest Receptor

(feet)

Existing Existing + Project Change at Receptor (dBA Leq)

Discernible Increase?

Exceeds Standard?

PM Peak Hour

dBA Leq (Segment)1

dBA Leq (Receptor)2

PM Peak Hour

dBA Leq (Segment)

dBA Leq (Receptor)

FHWA NAC

FICON

Millerton Road from Marina Drive to Winchell Cove Road

50 672 65.5 52.03 953 67.0 53.5 1.5 No No No

Millerton Road from Winchell Cove Road to Brighton Crest Drive

300 577 65.5 55.54 877 67.3 57.3 1.8 No No No

Millerton Road from Brighton Crest Drive to Sky Harbour Road

300 552 65.5 55.54 414 64.3 54.3 -1.2 No No No

Millerton Road from Sky Harbour Road from Table Mountain Road

375 459 65.5 55.54 376 64.6 54.6 -0.9 No No No

Millerton Road from Table Mountain Road to Auberry Road

150 274 65.5 42.33 345 66.5 43.3 1.0 No No No

Notes: PM Peak Hour = Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume 1 - Approximate noise level at a point 10 feet from the road shoulder. 2 - Estimated existing noise level at nearest off-Reservation noise sensitive receptor to road segment. 3 - Assumes an attenuation factor of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 - To be conservative, for receptors located 300 feet or more from the edge of Millerton Road the ambient noise level was assumed to be the same as the noise level recorded at Site 1

(refer to Appendix F and Figure 10). Source: Appendix D, Appendix F.

3.0 Impact Analysis


from the Proposed Project would not cause the ambient noise level at any of the nearest sensitive receptors to exceed 67.0 dBA Leq, nor would they cause an increase in noise levels of 5.0 dB or greater. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s impacts on ambient noise levels resulting from operational traffic would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational Equipment Noise

Commercial uses on the project site would have the potential to increase the ambient noise level due to operations of building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, as well as added noise from loading docks, surface parking lots, and driveways. Noise levels produced by HVAC systems vary, but generally result in a noise level of 60.0 dBA Leq at a distance of 20 feet (Berger et al., 2015); this is below the federal NAC standard for residential sensitive receptors of 67.0 dBA Leq. Based on similar commercial projects, idling trucks at loading docks have the potential to generate a noise level of up to 63.0 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from the source (j.c. brennan, 2010). The proposed loading docks would be located more than 400 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. Given that noise associated with loading docks generally does not exceed the NAC standard of 67.0 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet or the County noise level standard (65.5 dBA, equal to the ambient noise level), the operation of the on-site loading docks would not increase the ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors or result in significant adverse effects to the nearest noise-sensitive receptors under the Proposed Project. Increases in the ambient noise level associated with paved parking lots and driveways under the Proposed Project would be mainly due to slow-moving and idling vehicles, the opening and closing of doors, and patron conversation. The noise level in parking areas is generally dominated by slow-moving vehicles; thus, the ambient noise level in parking structures and parking lots is approximately 60.0 dBA (Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2014), which is less than the NAC of 67.0 dBA and the County noise standard of 65.5 dBA (equal to the ambient noise level). Therefore, miscellaneous noise levels from on-site vehicles and HVAC equipment under the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with the off-site ambient noise environment.

Cumulative

In the cumulative year 2040 it is anticipated that traffic on roadways in the vicinity of the Proposed Project would increase due to growth in the region. The effects of changes in traffic volumes on the cumulative year ambient noise environment are shown in Table 3-17. A discussion of the potential increases in traffic noise levels in the cumulative setting along affected roadways is provided below: Millerton Road

As shown in Table 3-17, the ambient noise levels at a distance approximately 10 feet from the affected segments of Millerton Road would range from 69.3 dBA Leq to 73.1 dBA Leq in the cumulative year due to a significant increase in traffic volumes relative to existing conditions. The estimated ambient noise

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-17 CUMULATIVE YEAR ROAD SEGMENT TRAFFIC VOLUME AND NOISE LEVEL CHANGES

Road Segment

Distance to Nearest Receptor

(feet)

Cumulative Cumulative + Project Change at Receptor (dBA Leq)

Discernible Increase?

Exceeds Standard?

PM Peak Hour

dBA Leq (Segment)1

dBA Leq (Receptor)2

PM Peak Hour

dBA Leq (Segment)

dBA Leq (Receptor)

FHWA NAC

FICON

Millerton Road from Marina Drive to Winchell Cove Road

50 3,863 73.1 59.63 4,145 73.4 59.9 0.3 No No No

Millerton Road from Winchell Cove Road to Brighton Crest Drive

300 1,991 70.9 60.94 2,254 71.4 61.4 0.5 No No No

Millerton Road from Brighton Crest Drive to Sky Harbour Road

300 1,581 70.1 60.14 1,367 69.5 59.5 -0.6 No No No

Millerton Road from Sky Harbour Road from Table Mountain Road

375 1,110 69.3 59.34 995 68.8 58.8 -0.5 No No No

Millerton Road from Table Mountain Road to Auberry Road

150 933 70.8 47.63 1,004 71.1 47.9 0.3 No No No

Notes: PM Peak Hour = Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume 1 - Approximate noise level at a point 10 feet from the road shoulder; calculated based on change in traffic volume compared to existing conditions: 10*log([Cumulative - Existing] /

Existing) = change in noise level from existing conditions. 2 - Estimated existing noise level at nearest off-Reservation noise sensitive receptor to road segment. 3 - Assumes an attenuation factor of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 - To be conservative, for receptors located 300 feet or more from the edge of Millerton Road the ambient noise level was assumed to be the same as the noise level recorded at Site 1

(refer to Appendix F and Figure 10). Source: Appendix D, Appendix F.

3.0 Impact Analysis


levels at the off-Reservation sensitive receptors nearest to the five affected segments would range from 47.6 dBA Leq to 60.9 dBA Leq in the cumulative year. Therefore, the FICON significance standard of a 5.0 dB increase or greater would apply to the three receptors with a projected cumulative year ambient noise level of less than 60.0 dBA Leq, while the standard of a 3.0 dB increase or greater would apply to the two receptors with a projected cumulative year ambient noise level between 60.0 dBA Leq and 65.0 dBA Leq. The FHWA NAC of 67 dBA Leq for residential uses (refer to Table 3-12) would apply to all receptors. As shown in Table 3-17, the changes in cumulative year traffic volumes on the five segments of Millerton Road resulting from the Proposed Project would not cause the ambient noise level at any of the nearest sensitive receptors to exceed 67.0 dBA Leq, nor would they cause an increase in noise levels of 3.0 dB or greater at any of the five receptors. Therefore, the operational traffic impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant in the cumulative year, and no mitigation is required.

3.7.3 MITIGATION

Construction shall be limited to occur between the hours of 6:00 am and 9:00 pm Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday, consistent with the Fresno County Code. Additionally, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques, including: improved mufflers and the use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds.

3.8 PUBLIC SERVICES


Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services

The Fresno County Fire Protection District (FCFPD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provide primary fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site and surrounding vicinity. Service to the project site is provided by Station 72, which is located at the Millerton Fire Station and also serves the community of Friant. The project site has an approximate five minute driving distance from the Millerton Fire Station on Millerton Road, approximately 3.5 miles from the project site. The primary responsibility of the FCFPD is to provide continuous fire protection and emergency medical services to more than half of the County, covering an area of approximately 2,655 square miles, including approximately 240,000 people (FCFPD, 2012). The department staffs 13 district fire stations and 5 paid call fire stations, with 48 firefighters on duty daily (FCFPD, 2012). The FCFPD responds to approximately 14,700 calls for service annually; of which approximately 8,000 are medical in nature (FCFPD, 2017). The department operates 18 engines, 1 ladder truck, 1 rescue, 6 water tenders, and 2 support vehicles (FCFPD, 2012). Station 72 has one Type 1 engine, one Type 3 engine, and one water tender (FCFPD, 2018). The FCFPD has an average response time of 13.9 minutes (FCFPD, 2012). The FCFPD is primarily funded by local taxes, grants, and development impact fees (FCFPD, 2012). The

3.0 Impact Analysis


Tribe currently voluntarily funds the year-round operation and staffing of the Millerton Fire Station and has recently signed another two-year agreement with CAL FIRE to fund the station year-round. The CAL FIRE maps the project site in a moderate fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2007). Ambulance services are provided by American Ambulance, which serves Fresno and Kings Counties. Skylife provides aeromedical transportation to the project area, with air ambulance service located at Fresno International Airport. There are seven hospitals located within 15 miles of the project site. The closest is the Clovis Community Medical Center at 2755 Herndon Avenue approximately 10 miles south of the project site in the town of Clovis.

Law Enforcement

Under Public Law 280, the State of California and other local law enforcement agencies have criminal enforcement authority on tribal lands. Public and private lands surrounding the project are under the jurisdiction of the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO). The FCSO law enforcement, detention, and court services to a service area of approximately 6,000 square miles (FCSO, 2017). The Area 4 FCSO patrol district covers the eastern region of the County, including the project site. Due to budget reductions, there are insufficient support staff to maintain a substation that is open to the public in Area 4; however, deputies and detectives still work out of local substations as needed to serve the public, including a substation in the town of Auberry, approximately 11 miles from the project site (FCSO, 2017). The FCSO received 304,072 non-emergency calls and 92,232 emergency calls in 2016 (FCSO, 2016). In 2017, FCSO responded to 96 calls to the existing Casino (Karst, 2018). Currently, there exists no formal agreement between the Tribe and the FCSO. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is the chief law enforcement agency for traffic-related issues on public highways and roads, with area offices located in Madera and Fresno. The FCSO and Table Mountain Rancheria Tribal Police Department (TMPD) currently provide law enforcement services to the existing Rancheria. The Table Mountain Rancheria and the BIA entered into a Deputation Agreement in August 2007 that allows TMPD officers to enforce federal laws and make arrests on the Rancheria (BIA, 2007). The TMPD is primarily responsible for enforcing tribal ordinances and security on the Reservation. TMPD currently has 27 employees, which includes 4 administrators, 7 dispatchers, 3 corporals, and 13 officers. The casino also currently has a security force that is responsible for monitoring and responding to issues on the existing casino property. The casino’s security force currently encompasses 72 employees, including 48 officers, 8 supervisors, and 7 emergency medical technicians (EMTs). For criminal matters and to address issues off the Rancheria property, the FCSO provides law enforcement services.

3.0 Impact Analysis




As described above, fire protection and emergency medical services are provided by FCFPD and CAL FIRE. The Proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with applicable building code requirements, which include requirements for fire suppression systems. The construction of the Proposed Project would not significantly increase the demand for fire protection services beyond what existing facilities are able to service. However, a ladder truck would be needed to respond to fires at the hotel tower. The FCFPD currently has one ladder truck that operates from Station 87, which is located in southern Fresno approximately 20 aerial miles and 28 road miles from the project site. Additionally, the FCFPD has access to other ladder trucks during emergencies through their automatic aid agreements. The Tribe will continue to coordinate with FCFPD and CAL FIRE to ensure that sufficient equipment is available to serve the Proposed Project, which may include relocating or acquiring a ladder truck for Station 72. The Tribe’s agreement with CAL FIRE to fund the nearest station year-round ensures that the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new facilities and would have a less-than-significant effect on off-Reservation fire departments.

Law Enforcement

The Table Mountain Casino would continue to employ full-time trained security personnel to deter criminal activities and train security personnel in detaining individuals subject to arrest. The Tribe anticipates the addition of eight officers, 3 EMTs, and 1 vehicle Maintenance Supervisor to serve the Proposed Project. The increase in patrons as a result of the Proposed Project facilities would likely result in increased service demands to FCSO; however, the provision of the majority of law enforcement services by the TMPD would ensure that this impact is not substantial and no law enforcement facilities are required to be constructed or expanded. The Tribe will continue to reimburse FCSO for law enforcement services provided to the project site.

Cumulative


New development would be required to fund County services including fire protection and emergency medical response in part through development fees and property taxes. Emergency medical costs are paid primarily by the individual requiring service. The Proposed Project would continue to provide year-round funding to CAL FIRE for the provision of fire protection and emergency medical services from FCFPD, and cumulative projects would pay development fees and property taxes toward funding these services. Because the Proposed Project (through the provision of adequate funding to existing facilities) would not require the construction or expansion of fire protection facilities, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact on public fire protection services.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Law Enforcement

New development would fund in part County services including law enforcement through development fees and property taxes. As stated above, the Tribe would continue to employ full-time trained security personnel, and would continue to provide law enforcement services via the TMPD. Increases in demand for services from the Proposed Project to the FCSO would be limited. The provision of law enforcement services by the Tribe and recommended mitigation listed in Section 3.8.3 below ensure that the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative effect on public law enforcement services. 3.8.3 MITIGATION

No mitigation is required.

3.9 TRANSPORTATION

A TIS was conducted for the Proposed Project and is included within Appendix D. The results of the TIS are summarized within this section.


Surrounding Roadway Network

The project site is located north of Millerton Road, between Winchell Cove Road and Sky Harbour Road, and immediately west of the Tribe’s Reservation and existing casino. Regional access to the project site is provided by Friant Road and Auberry Road. Various roadways in the vicinity of the site provide local access. Millerton Road is the east-west roadway that provides access to the site. North-south roadways that provide local access include Winchell Cove Road and Sky Harbour Road. The following is a description of the roadway facilities in the project vicinity. Friant Road south of North Fork Road is classified as an expressway south and as an Arterial north of the Lost Lake Park entrance road in the County General Plan. Friant Road is a four-lane divided roadway with bike lanes. Friant Road widens to five lanes between Ft. Washington Road and Shepherd Avenue, and to six lanes between Shepherd Avenue and SR-41. The speed limit between North Fork Road and Willow Avenue is 65 mph, between Willow Avenue and Copper Avenue is 55 mph, between Copper Avenue and Audubon Drive is 50 mph, and between Audubon Drive and SR-41 is 45 mph. North Fork Road west of North Friant Road / Millerton Road is constructed as a two-lane undivided road. North Fork Road is classified as an expressway in the General Plan. The posted speed limit is 55 mph. Willow Avenue is classified as a super arterial in the County General Plan. Willow Road is an undivided two-lane roadway with bike lanes and a speed limit of 55 mph between Friant Road and Copper Avenue.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Between Copper Avenue and Shepherd Avenue, Willow Avenue widens to a four-lane divided road with bike lanes and a speed limit of 50 mph. Millerton Road is classified as an arterial in the County General Plan. Between North Fork Road and Auberry Road, Millerton Road is constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit fluctuates between 45 and 55 mph along the roadway. Auberry Road is classified as an arterial in the County General Plan. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided road with bike lanes. The posted speed limit is 55 mph. Copper Avenue is classified as an arterial in the County General Plan. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided road with bike lanes. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road is classified as a collector road local street in the County General Plan. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided road, which provides access to the Millerton Lake Marina. Brighton Crest Road is classified as a collector roadlocal street in the County General Plan. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided road, which provides access to the Eagle Springs Golf Course and Country Club and residential development. Sky Harbour Road is classified as a local street in the County General Plan. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided road, which provides access to tribal residences in addition to residences and recreation areas along Millerton Lake. Table Mountain Road is classified as a local street in the County General Plan. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided road, which provides access to tribal development near the existing casino. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Study Area

Intersection turn movement counts were conducted for peak periods of 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm on Friday, November 17, 2017, and Saturday, November 18, 2017. The peak hour periods were determined based on 48-hour counts (Friday and Saturday) at the existing Table Mountain Casino driveways along Millerton Road. The observed peak hour was between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm for both Friday and Saturday. The traffic counts were conducted during fair weather conditions while schools were in session. Intersections

1. North Fork Road / Friant Road

3.0 Impact Analysis


2. Millerton Road / Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road 3. Millerton Road / Brighton Crest Drive (main project access) 4. Millerton Road / Sky Harbour Road 5. Millerton Road / Main Entrance to Existing Table Mountain Casino 6. Millerton Road / Table Mountain Road 7. Millerton Road / Auberry Road 8. Friant Road / Willow Avenue 9. Copper Avenue / Willow Avenue 10. Millerton Road / Project Driveway #2 (secondary project access; future intersection) 11. Marina Drive / Auberry Road (future intersection)

Roadway Segments

Millerton Road between: North Fork Road and Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road Millerton Road between: Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road and Brighton Crest Road Millerton Road between: Brighton Crest Road and Sky Harbour Road Millerton Road between: Sky Harbour Road and Table Mountain Road Millerton Road between: Table Mountain Road and Auberry Road Willow Avenue between: Friant Road and Silaxo Avenue Willow Avenue between: Silaxo Avenue and Copper Avenue Marina Drive between: Millerton Road and Auberry Road (future roadway segment)

Existing Level of Service (LOS)

The existing setting assumes existing traffic levels from traffic counts collected in November 2017. Intersections

Table 3-18 summarizes the existing weekday and weekend peak hour intersection operations. As indicated in the table, all study area intersections were determined to operate at level of service (LOS) C (which is the target LOS for all study area intersections) or better in the existing condition, with the exception of the Friant Road at Willow Avenue intersection which is operating at LOS D. Roadway Segments

Table 3-19 summarizes the existing roadway segment level operations for Millerton Road and Lake Willow Avenue. As indicated in Table 3-19, the roadway segment level segments were determined to operate at LOS C (target LOS for all segments is LOS C) or better in the existing condition.

Site Access

As described in Section 2.2.2, primary access to the project site would be provided through the construction of a new driveway along Millerton Road at the Brighton Crest Road alignment (main

3.0 Impact Analysis


entrance). A secondary service entrance would be provided to Millerton Road approximately 1,800 feet west of Brighton Crest Road. An additional service access would be provided through the existing driveway for the Tribe’s Pow Wow grounds along Sky Harbor Boulevard (see Figure 4).

TABLE 3-18

EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Intersection Control

Type Peak Hour

Existing

Delay (sec) LOS

1. North Fork Road / Friant Road-Millerton Road

Signal Friday PM 19.6 B

Saturday PM 17.5 B

2. Millerton Road / Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road

TWSC Friday PM 16.7 C

Saturday PM 17.5 C

3. Millerton Road / Brighton Crest Drive OWSC Friday PM 14.8 B

Saturday PM 14.8 B

4. Millerton Road / Sky Harbour Road OWSC Friday PM 12.3 B

Saturday PM 13.5 B

5. Millerton Road / Main Entrance to Existing Table Mountain Casino

Signal Friday PM 20.0 B

Saturday PM 19.8 C

6. Millerton Road / Table Mountain Road OWSC Friday PM 10.4 B

Saturday PM 9.8 A

7. Millerton Road / Auberry Road OWSC Friday PM 12.9 B

Saturday PM 11.2 B

8. Friant Road / Willow Avenue TWSC Friday PM 26.6 D

Saturday PM 26.6 D

9. Copper Avenue / Willow Avenue AWSC Friday PM 17.1 C

Saturday PM 12.1 B

Notes: OWSC – one-way stop control; TWSC – two-way stop control; AWSC – all-way stop control Source: Appendix D.

Existing Pedestrian, Transportation, and Bicycle Operations

A bus shuttle service is provided by the existing Casino to the South and Central Valley and Fresno Area, by reservation. This service operates daily (TMC, 2017). The Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) provides service between Auberry and Fresno along Auberry Road (Auberry Transit Subsystem) approximately two miles from the project site (FCRTA, 2017). This route provides transit service between 8:00 am and 2:30 pm, Monday through Friday (FCRTA, 2017). Bike lanes exist along North Friant Road, Millerton Road, and Auberry Road (Fresno County, 2000; Fresno County, 2010). No paved pedestrian sidewalks are located in the vicinity of the project site.

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-19 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE

Street Segment Peak Hour Direction Existing

Volume V/C LOS

Millerton Road

North Fork Road to Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road

Friday PM EB 370 0.61 C

WB 302 0.50 C

Saturday PM EB 350 0.58 C

WB 385 0.64 C

Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road to Brighton Crest Drive


WB 258 0.43 C


WB 353 0.59 C

Brighton Crest Drive to Sky Harbour Road


WB 252 0.42 C


WB 333 0.55 C

Sky Harbour Road to Table Mountain Road


WB 171 0.28 C


WB 244 0.40 C

Table Mountain Road to Auberry Road


WB 126 0.21 C


WB 135 0.22 C

Willow Avenue

Friant Road to Silaxo Avenue

Friday PM NB 228 0.31 C

SB 204 0.27 C

Saturday PM NB 150 0.20 C

SB 192 0.26 C

Silaxo Avenue to Copper Avenue

Friday PM NB 285 0.38 C

SB 201 0.27 C

Saturday PM NB 176 0.24 C

SB 198 0.27 C

Notes: V/C – volume to capacity ratio; EB – eastbound; WB – westbound; NB – northbound; SB - southbound Source: Appendix D.


Methodology

The methodology used to analyze traffic impacts resulting from the Proposed Project is described in detail in the TIS provided as Appendix D. Methodologies used to analyze project related impacts are consistent

3.0 Impact Analysis


with the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual, the County’s Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies within the County of Fresno, and Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual (Appendix D). Trip Generation

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) does not have trip rates for Indian Gaming Casinos in their publications. Therefore, trip generation rates were estimated based on trips to the existing Casino. A trip generation rate of 6.30 trips per 1,000 sf for the Friday PM peak hour and 6.63 trips per 1,000 sf for the Saturday PM peak hour were determined. This trip generation rate includes trips to the casino, bingo hall, and restaurants within the existing casino. This rate was compared to casino trip generation rates determined at similar facilities and used in various traffic assessments for other casino projects, including the Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project, Wilton Rancheria Casino Project, San Diego County Casino Study (SDCDPW, 2003), and other casino projects within California. The casino trip generation rate determined for the Proposed Project is similar to the rates from the aforementioned casino projects and studies, which ranged from 3.93 to 9.84 trips per 1,000 sf. Hotel trip rates are based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual; however, because a significant amount of overlap between casino trips and hotel trips is anticipated, the 8.17 trips per room was reduced by 5.17 trips (63 percent) to account for internal capture at the casino. This reduction to 3.0 trips per room is consistent with hotel trip generation adjustments demonstrated in surveys and studies of southern California casinos (SDCDPW, 2003). The conference center/meeting room trip generation rate was determined based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, using the General Office Building Land Use. The special event venue trip generation rate was developed based on a weekday event at full capacity, with typical weekday activities for all other uses also occurring. The trip generation estimate is based on a vehicle occupancy of 2.21 (or 0.9 daily vehicle trips per seat) and a reduction of 50 percent due to internal capture at the casino. Since special events are planned to be held infrequently, the trip generation summary in Table 3-20 does not include the traffic generated by special events. Refer to Table 3-21 for a description of the special event venue trip generation and net total trip generation during special events. Impacts from special event traffic are addressed separately in this analysis. Table 3-20 shows the trip generation rates for the Proposed Project, trips at the existing casino, and the net change in total weekday and weekend trips as a result of the Proposed Project. Trip distribution is based on prevailing traffic patterns in the vicinity of the project site, complementary land uses, major transportation routes, the location of nearby population centers, and available data. All project traffic would travel on Millerton Road, with 79 percent travelling west from the project site, and the remainder travelling to the east. This is shown on Figure 3-1 of the TIS (Appendix D).

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-20 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

Land Use Quantity Friday ADT Friday PM Peak Hour Volume Saturday ADT Saturday PM Peak Hour

Rate Volume Rate In Out Total Rate Volume Rate In Out Total

Total Proposed Facility

Casino1 110 ksf 63.10 6,940 6.30 479 215 694 66.3 7,290 6.63 452 277 729

Hotel2 150 rooms 3.00 450 0.22 17 16 33 3.00 450 0.27 23 18 41

Conference Center/ Meeting Rooms

6.9 ksf 9.74 67 1.15 1 7 8 2.21 15 0.53 2 2 4

Total Proposed Facility Trips 7,457 497 238 735 7,755 477 297 774

Existing Facility

Existing Table Mountain Casino3

3,770 261 116 377 3,960 244 152 396

Total Existing Facility Trips 3,770 261 116 377 3,960 244 152 396

Net Total Trip Generation 3,687 236 122 358 3,795 233 145 378 Note: ADT – average daily trips; ksf – 1,000 square feet 1 – Trip generation rates are based on PM peak hour traffic counts at the existing Casino. 2 – The ITE hotel trip rate was reduced by 63 percent to account for internal capture between the casino and hotel. 3 – The daily trip rate assumes that 10 percent of daily traffic occurs during the PM peak hour. PM peak hour trips were determined from existing counts. Source: Appendix D.

TABLE 3-21 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY DURING SPECIAL EVENTS

Land Use Quantity ADT Friday PM Peak Hour – Inbound Friday PM Peak Hour – Outbound

Rate Volume Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total

Casino1 110 ksf 63.10 6,940 6.30 479 215 694 6.30 479 215 694

Hotel2 151 rooms 3.00 453 0.22 17 16 33 0.22 17 16 33

Conference Center/ Meeting Rooms

6.9 ksf 9.74 67 1.15 1 7 8 1.15 1 7 8

Special Event Venue3 1,500 seats 0.45 675 0.23 321 17 338 0.23 17 321 338

Total Proposed Facility Trips 8,135 818 255 1,073 514 559 1,073

Existing Facility

Existing Table Mountain Casino4

3,770 261 116 377 261 116 37733

7

Existing Special Event Venue3

1,200 seats 0.45 540 0.23 257 13 270 0.23 13 257 270

Total Existing Facility Trips 4,310 518 129 647 274 373 647

Net Total Trip Generation 3,825 300 126 426 240 186 426 Note: ADT – average daily trips; ksf – 1,000 square feet 1 – Trip generation rates are based on PM peak hour traffic counts at the existing Casino. 2 – The ITE hotel trip rate was reduced by 63 percent to account for internal capture between the casino and hotel. 3 – The special event trip rate is based on a vehicle occupancy of 2.21 persons per vehicle, which is equivalent to a rate of 0.9 trips per seat. It was

assumed that 50 percent of special event attendees will be captured by the casino. 4 – The daily trip rate assumes that 10 percent of daily traffic occurs during the PM peak hour. PM peak hour trips were determined from existing counts. Source: Appendix D.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Significance Thresholds

The following significance thresholds were identified within Appendix D. Intersections

A direct traffic impact will be designated as significant if: The Proposed Project would cause a signalized intersection that is operating at an acceptable LOS

to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; The Proposed Project would cause the average delay to increase by more than 5.0 seconds at a

signalized intersection that is operating at an unacceptable LOS. It should be noted that a decrease from an unacceptable LOS to a lesser LOS (e.g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not considered an impact unless the corresponding delay increase is greater than 5.0 seconds;

The Proposed Project would cause a movement or approach at an unsignalized intersection that is operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; or

The Proposed Project would cause the average delay at an unsignalized intersection to increase by more than 5.0 seconds on a movement or approach that is operating at an unacceptable LOS. It should be noted that a decrease from an unacceptable LOS to a lesser LOS (e.g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not considered an impact unless the corresponding delay increase is greater than 5.0 seconds.

Roadway Segments

A direct traffic impact will be designated as significant if: The Proposed Project would cause a roadway segment that is operating at an acceptable LOS to

deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; or The Proposed Project would cause the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio (on a directional peak hour

basis) to increase by more than 0.05 on a roadway that is already operating at an unacceptable LOS. It should be noted that a decrease from an unacceptable LOS to a lesser LOS (e.g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not considered an impact unless the corresponding V/C increase is greater than 0.05.

Proposed Project Traffic Analysis

Construction Traffic

Construction of the Proposed Project would require truck trips for the import of materials and equipment, and daily construction workers trips. Additionally, some excavated material would be hauled off-site and utilized at a location within the Reservation. Traffic impacts resulting from construction activities would be temporary and intermittent in nature and would generally occur during off-peak traffic hours (5:00 am to 6:00 am and 10:00 am to 4:00 pm). Construction activity impacts would be concentrated on Millerton Road in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Traffic-related construction impacts may include

3.0 Impact Analysis


traffic delays, one-way traffic control, temporary road closures, and traffic detours. Construction trips are estimated to be a maximum of 624 trips (449 one-way worker trips and 175 one-way material haul trips) to and from the project site, including construction worker trips, material delivery, and equipment delivery. Since construction traffic is temporary in nature, significant adverse effects associated with construction traffic would not occur. Operational Traffic – Existing Plus Project Conditions

To assess the impacts of the Proposed Project on transportation facilities in the study area, the projected number of trips generated by the Proposed Project was added to existing traffic volumes. Intersections Table 3-22 shows the weekday and weekend intersection delay and LOS for the PM peak hours at each of the study intersections under Existing Plus Project Conditions. With the addition of project-related traffic, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS, except for the following intersections:

2. Millerton Road / Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road; 3. Millerton Road / Brighton Crest Drive (main project access); and 8. Friant Road / Willow Avenue.

Operational Traffic – Near Term Plus Project Conditions

To assess the impacts of the Proposed Project on transportation facilities in the study area, the projected number of trips generated by the Proposed Project and traffic from pending and approved projects was added to existing traffic volumes (2020) as well as a one percent growth rate per year to the existing traffic volumes. Intersections Table 3-22 shows the weekday and weekend intersection delay and LOS for the PM peak hours at each of the study intersections under Near Term Plus Project Conditions. The addition of project-related traffic would cause the following study intersections to experience a significant adverse impact to LOS:

1. North Fork Road / Friant Road; 2. Millerton Road / Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road; 3. Millerton Road / Brighton Crest Drive (main project access); and 6. Millerton Road / Table Mountain Road; 7. Millerton Road / Auberry Road; 8. Friant Road / Willow Avenue; 9. Copper Avenue / Willow Avenue; and 10. Millerton Road / Project Driveway #2 (secondary project access).

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-22 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Intersection Control

Type Peak Hour

Existing Existing Plus

Project Near Term

Near Term Plus Project

Cumulative Cumulative Plus

Project

Delay (sec)

LOS Delay (sec)

LOS Delay (sec)

LOS Delay (sec)

LOS Delay (sec)

LOS

Delay (sec)

LOS

1. North Fork Road / Friant Road-Millerton Road

Signal Friday PM 19.6 B 20.6 C 300+20.8 FC 300+23.0 FC 300+35.3 FD 300+43.4 FD

Saturday PM 17.5 B 19.1 B 300+18.3 FB 300+21.1 FC 300+25.7 FC 300+30.3 FC


TWSC Friday PM 16.7 C 26.4 D 300+23.8 FC 300+57.1 F 300+59.1 F 300+177.2 F

Saturday PM 17.5 C 27.3 D 300+46.5 FE 300+206.0 F 300+194.1 F 300+ F

3. Millerton Road / Brighton Crest Drive

OWSC Friday PM 14.8 B 70.4 F 300+15.4 FC 300+75.4 F 300+24.1 FC 300+292.4 F

Saturday PM 14.8 B 79.0 F 300+15.4 FC 300+90.9 F 300+32.8 FD 300+ F

4. Millerton Road / Sky Harbour Road

OWSC Friday PM 12.3 B 10.6 B 300+12.8 FB 142.410.9 FB 232.024.3 FC 52.616.6 FC

Saturday PM 13.5 B 10.8 B 300+14.1 FB 300+11.2 FB 300+58.0 F 300+23.0 FC

5. Millerton Road / Main Entrance to Existing Table Mountain Casino

Signal Friday PM 20.0 B 18.3 B 17.515.4 B 15.414.7 B 20.218.6 CB 16.916.0 B

Saturday PM 19.8 C 18.9 B 18.815.0 B 15.913.7 B 19.416.9 B 16.714.1 B

6. Millerton Road / Table Mountain Road

OWSC Friday PM 10.4 B 11.0 B 30.110.6 DB 35.611.0 EB 17.913.0 CB 19.614.6 CB

Saturday PM 9.8 A 10.2 B 26.09.9 DA 29.210.7 DB 22.314.2 CB 24.816.0 C

7. Millerton Road / Auberry Road

OWSC Friday PM 12.9 B 14.5 B 300+13.5 FB 300+15.4 FC 191.431.9 FD 290.348.1 F

Saturday PM 11.2 B 12.4 B 300+11.6 FB 300+12.8 FB 213.118.7 FC 300+23.6 FC

8. Friant Road / Willow Avenue

TWSC Friday PM 26.6 D 38.0 E 300+36.5 FE 300+56.0 F 300+ F 300+ F

Saturday PM 26.6 D 38.5 E 300+37.6 FE 300+57.8 F 300+ F 300+ F

9. Copper Avenue / Willow Avenue

AWSC Friday PM 17.1 C 18.6 B 300+19.8 FC 300+22.1 FC 300+251.0 F 300+264.4 F

Saturday PM 12.1 B 12.9 B 300+13.1 FB 300+14.3 FB 300+125.0 F 300+136.3 F

10. Millerton Road / Project Driveway #2

OWSC Friday PM - - 10.7 B - - 20.710.6 CB - - 20.212.9 CB

Saturday PM - - 11.6 B - - 33.811.8 DB - - 32.716.2 DC

11. Marina Drive / Auberry Road

OWSC Friday PM - - - - - - - - 12.011.4 B 12.311.6 B

Saturday PM - - - - - - - - 12.011.7 B 12.311.9 B

Notes: OWSC – one-way stop control; TWSC – two-way stop control; AWSC – all-way stop control Source: Appendix D.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Mitigation Measures included in Section 3.9.3 below would reduce impacts to these intersections. Roadway Segments Table 3-23 shows the roadway segment volume to capacity ratio and LOS for the weekday and weekend PM peak hours at each of the study roadway segments under Near Term Plus Project Conditions. The addition of project-related traffic would not cause any of the study roadway segments to experience a significant adverse impact to LOS, except for the following roadway segments: Millerton Road between: North Fork Road and Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road; Millerton Road between: Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road and Brighton Crest Road; Millerton Road between Sky Harbour Road and Table Mountain Road; and Millerton Road between: Table Mountain Road and Auberry Road. Mitigation Measures included in Section 3.9.3 below would reduce impacts to thisese roadway segments. Summary of Near Term Plus Project Traffic Impacts The increase in traffic generated by the Proposed Project would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at the eight three study intersections and three one roadway segments listed above. Implementation of mitigation measures provided in Section 3.9.3 would restore the intersection and roadway segment to acceptable operations based on the County’s standards with the exception of the intersection of North Fork Road and Friant Road Friant Road and Willow Avenue, due to design constraints; therefore, with the implementation of traffic improvement mitigation measures, the Proposed Project would have a significant adverse effect on traffic and circulation. Operational Traffic – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersections Table 3-22 shows the weekday and weekend intersection delay and LOS for the PM peak hours at each of the study intersections under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The addition of project-related traffic would cause the following study intersections to experience a significant adverse impact to LOS:

1. North Fork Road / Friant Road; 2. Millerton Road / Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road; 3. Millerton Road / Brighton Crest Drive (main project access); 7. Millerton Road / Auberry Road; 8. Friant Road / Willow Avenue; and 9. Copper Avenue / Willow Avenue; and 10. Millerton Road / Project Driveway #2 (secondary project access).

Mitigation Measures included in Section 3.9.3 below would reduce impacts to these intersections.

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-23 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE


Existing Plus Project

Near Term Near Term Plus

Project Cumulative

Cumulative Plus Project

V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS

Millerton Road

North Fork Road to Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road

Friday PM EB 0.61 C 0.92 C 3.240.78 FC 3.531.07 FD 3.301.11 FD 3.591.40 F

WB 0.50 C 0.66 C 2.670.59 FC 2.820.74 FC 2.740.91 FC 2.901.06 FD

Saturday PM EB 0.58 C 0.89 C 3.150.73 FC 3.431.02 FD 3.201.05 FD 3.491.34 F

WB 0.64 C 0.83 C 2.740.76 FC 2.920.94 FC 2.841.15 F 3.021.33 F

Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road to Brighton Crest Drive

Friday PM EB 0.53 C 0.87 C 1.580.52 FC 1.900.84 FC 1.590.96 FC 1.911.28 F

WB 0.43 C 0.59 C 1.470.43 FC 1.620.58 FC 1.530.77 FC 1.680.92 FC

Saturday PM EB 0.54 C 0.85 C 1.580.54 FC 1.870.83 FC 1.620.98 FC 1.921.27 F

WB 0.59 C 0.78 C 1.860.58 FC 2.050.76 FC 1.951.06 FD 2.131.24 F

Brighton Crest Drive to Sky Harbour Road

Friday PM EB 0.50 C 0.26 C 1.320.49 FC 1.090.27 DC 1.200.90 FC 0.980.67 C

WB 0.42 C 0.43 C 1.360.42 FC 1.360.43 FC 1.270.76 FC 1.280.77 FC

Saturday PM EB 0.53 C 0.30 C 1.560.53 FC 1.350.31 FC 1.470.97 FC 1.250.75 FC

WB 0.55 C 0.51 C 1.700.55 FC 1.660.51 FC 1.661.00 FC 1.620.95 FC

Sky Harbour Road to Table Mountain Road

Friday PM EB 0.48 C 0.24 C 0.990.46 C 0.890.24 C 0.870.76 C 0.640.54 C

WB 0.28 C 0.38 C 0.990.29 C 1.080.38 DC 0.870.51 C 0.960.60 C

Saturday PM EB 0.45 C 0.27 C 1.060.29 DC 0.890.12 C 0.960.81 C 0.790.64 C

WB 0.40 C 0.46 C 1.330.41 FC 1.380.46 FC 1.250.73 FC 1.300.78 FC

Table Mountain Road to Auberry Road

Friday PM EB 0.25 C 0.29 C 0.770.25 C 0.810.29 C 0.670.55 C 0.700.59 C

WB 0.21 C 0.29 C 0.910.22 C 0.980.29 C 0.790.40 C 0.870.48 C

Saturday PM EB 0.22 C 0.26 C 0.800.22 C 0.850.27 C 0.690.59 C 0.740.63 C

WB 0.22 C 0.30 C 1.150.23 FC 1.230.31 FC 1.070.54 DC 1.140.61 FC

Willow Avenue

Friant Road to Silaxo Avenue

Friday PM NB 0.31 C 0.34 C 1.780.34 FC 1.810.37 FC 1.840.59 FC 1.870.62 FC

SB 0.27 C 0.29 C 1.380.29 FC 1.400.31 FC 1.440.52 FC 1.460.53 FC

Saturday PM NB 0.20 C 0.24 C 1.940.23 FC 1.970.27 FC 1.970.38 FC 2.010.42 FC

SB 0.26 C 0.28 C 1.460.29 FC 1.480.31 FC 1.480.49 FC 1.530.51 FC

3.0 Impact Analysis



Existing Plus Project

Near Term Near Term Plus

Project Cumulative

Cumulative Plus Project

V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS

Silaxo Avenue to Copper Avenue

Friday PM NB 0.38 C 0.42 C 2.020.42 FC 2.050.45 FC 2.050.73 FC 2.130.77 FC

SB 0.27 C 0.29 C 1.510.29 FC 1.530.31 FC 1.530.52 FC 1.580.53 FC

Saturday PM NB 0.24 C 0.27 C 1.900.27 FC 1.940.30 FC 1.940.45 FC 1.990.49 FC

SB 0.27 C 0.29 C 1.690.29 FC 1.710.31 FC 1.740.51 FC 1.760.53 FC

Marina Drive

Millerton Road to Auberry Road

Friday PM NB - - - - - - - - 0.14 C 0.14 C

SB - - - - - - - - 0.15 C 0.15 C

Saturday PM NB - - - - - - - - 0.12 C 0.12 C

SB - - - - - - - - 0.14 C 0.14 C

Notes: V/C – volume to capacity ratio; EB – eastbound; WB – westbound; NB – northbound; SB – southbound Source: Appendix D.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Roadway Segments Table 3-23 shows the roadway segment volume to capacity ratio and LOS for the weekday and weekend PM peak hours at each of the study roadway segments under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The addition of project-related traffic would not cause any of the study roadway segments to experience a significant adverse impact to LOS, except for the following roadway segments: Millerton Road between: North Fork Road and Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road; and Millerton Road between: Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road and Brighton Crest Road; and Millerton Road between: Table Mountain Road and Auberry Road.

Mitigation Measures included in Section 3.9.3 below would reduce impacts to these roadway segments. Summary of Cumulative Traffic Impacts The increase in traffic generated by the Proposed Project would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at the seven six study intersections and three two roadway segments listed above. Implementation of mitigation measures provided in Section 3.9.3 would restore the intersections and roadway segments in Cumulative Plus Project Conditions to acceptable operations based on the County’s standards with the exception of the intersection of North Fork Road and Friant Road, due to design constraints; therefore, with the implementation of traffic improvement mitigation measures, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative adverse effect on traffic and circulation. Special Event Traffic

The proposed special event venue would be used for monthly concerts, banquets, special private events, and as a conference center. Project trip generation shown in Table 3-21 shows the traffic generated by full capacity special events. As shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-6 of the TIS (Appendix D), special events would result in impacts to the following intersections and roadway segments under existing and/or cumulative conditions: Intersections

1. North Fork Road / Friant Road (cumulative); 2. Millerton Road / Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road (existing and cumulative); 3. Millerton Road / Brighton Crest Drive (main project access) (existing and cumulative); 7. Millerton Road / Auberry Road (cumulative); 8. Friant Road / Willow Avenue (existing and cumulative); 9. Copper Avenue / Willow Avenue (cumulative); and 10. Millerton Road / Project Driveway #2 (secondary project access) (cumulative).

Roadway Segments Millerton Road between: North Fork Road and Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road (existing and

cumulative); and

3.0 Impact Analysis


Millerton Road between: Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road and Brighton Crest Road (existing and cumulative);

Millerton Road between: Brighton Crest Road and Sky Harbour Road (cumulative); Millerton Road between: Sky Harbour Road and Table Mountain Road (cumulative); Willow Avenue between: Friant Road and Silaxo Avenue (cumulative); and Willow Avenue between: Silaxo Avenue and Copper Avenue (cumulative).

The traffic related to the special event venue has a potential to significantly impact traffic circulation in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, mitigation measures are provided in Section 3.9.3, which will minimize adverse effects resulting from special event traffic. Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities

Implementation of the Proposed Project may result in increased use of the bus shuttle service to the Casino, as it is assumed to continue operation to the new casino location. The Tribe would increase the capacity of this shuttle service as needed to accommodate an increase in ridership. Therefore, an increased ridership on the public transportation system would not cause an exceedance of capacity. This is a less-than-significant effect. Currently no pedestrian facilities are located in the vicinity of the project site. Bicycle lanes are currently provided along North Friant Road, Millerton Road, and Auberry Road. The County’s Regional Bicycle and Recreational Trails Master Plan identifies Millerton Road for development of Class II bicycle lanes. The Proposed Project is not projected to generate a substantial increase in bicycling activity or pedestrian trips. Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on existing or planned off-Reservation bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

3.9.3 MITIGATION

The following mitigation measures listed in Table 3-24 will be implemented to reduce project-related traffic impacts (refer to Table 4-1 and 4-2 in Appendix D regarding LOS after mitigation at intersections and roadway segments). Fair share payments are also provided in Table 3-24 for all proposed traffic improvements.

Special Events

The Tribe will implement the following mitigation measure, which would reduce traffic-related impacts during special events to less than significant: A traffic control plan, consistent with County guidelines, will be prepared for special events

occurring on the project site to ensure minimal impacts to traffic in the vicinity of the site.

3.0 Impact Analysis


TABLE 3-24 PROPOSED TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES

Intersection / Roadway Segment Improvement Applicable Scenarios

Fair Share Contribution

1. North Fork Road / Friant Road

5.014.3 %

Widen northbound approach to 12 left turn lanes, 23 through lanes, with a shared 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right turn lane)

N, C

Widen southbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 23 through lanes, with a shared 1 right turn lane (adding 12 through lanes, one right turn lane)

N, C

Widen eastbound approach to 12 left turn lanes, 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane with overlap phasing (adding 12 left turn lanes)

N, C

Widen westbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane)

N, C

Increase storage length of NB left turn movement to 200 feet C

Increase storage length of EB right turn movement to 150 feet C


10.617.3 %

Install traffic signal N, C

Widen southbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 shared through/right lane (adding 1 left turn lane)

N, C

Widen eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right turn lane (adding 1 through lane)

N, C

Widen westbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 shared through/right turn lane (adding 1 through lane)

N, C

3. Millerton Road / Brighton Crest Drive (main project driveway)

17.222.2 %

Install traffic signal E, N, C

Widen eastbound approach to 2 left turn lanes, 1 shared through/right lane (adding 2 left turn lanes)

E, N, C

Widen westbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right turn lane (adding 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane)

N, C

7. Millerton Road / Auberry Road

5.88.0 % Install traffic signal N, C

Widen southbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)

N

8. Friant Road / Willow Avenue

3.310.3 %


Widen northbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 3 through lanes, 1 right turn lane (adding 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane)

N, C

Widen southbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 shared through/right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane)

N, C

9. Copper Avenue / Willow Avenue

1.02.6 %


Widen northbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane)

N, C

Widen southbound approach to 2 left turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right turn lane (adding 2 left turn lanes, 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane)

N, C

3.0 Impact Analysis


Intersection / Roadway Segment Improvement Applicable Scenarios

Fair Share Contribution

Widen westbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane with overlap phasing (adding 1 left turn lane, 1 right turn lane)

N, C

Widen eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane, 1 right turn lane)

N

Widen eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane)

C

10. Millerton Road / Project Driveway #2 (secondary project access) 13.7 %

Widen westbound approach to 2 through lanes (adding 1 through lane) N, C

Millerton Road between North Fork Road and Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road

8.321.8 % Widen eastbound travel lane from 1 to 3 2 lanes (adding 2 1 lanes) N, C

Widen westbound travel lane from 1 to 3 2 lanes (adding 2 1 lanes) N, C

Millerton Road between Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road and Brighton Crest Drive (main project driveway)

15.523.2 % Widen eastbound travel lane from 1 to 2 lanes (adding 1 lane) N, C

Widen westbound travel lane from 1 to 2 lanes (adding 1 lane) N, C

Millerton Road between Sky Harbour Boulevard and Table Mountain Road 6.8 %

Widen westbound travel lane from 1 to 2 lanes (adding 1 lane) N

Millerton Road between Table Mountain Road and Auberry Road 6.4 %

Widen westbound travel lane from 1 to 2 lanes (adding 1 lane) N, C

Notes: E = Existing Plus Project Conditions; N = Near Term Plus Project Conditions; C = Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

3.10 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS


Solid Waste

Solid waste generated by tribal housing and tribal government buildings on the Reservation is currently collected by Ponderosa Solid Waste (also known as Western Solid Waste); the project site would utilize this service as well. The Tribe currently implements recycling and composting programs which reduces the amount of solid waste disposed (TMR, 2005). Solid waste is disposed of at the American Avenue Landfill, located approximately 34 miles southwest of the project site, via either the Cedar Avenue Recycle and Transfer Station south of Fresno or the Rice Road Recyclery & Transfer Station in Friant. The American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards, approximately 89.8 percent (29,358,535 cubic yards) of which had not been utilized as of July 2005 (CalRecycle, 2017a). The landfill has a maximum permitted intake of 2,200 tons per day and is expected to operate until August 2031 (CalRecycle, 2017a).

Gas and Electricity

A liquid petroleum (propane) gas tank north of the existing casino serves the existing Table Mountain Casino; a new propane tank would be constructed on the project site for use of the Proposed Project.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Suburban Propane currently delivers propane to the Reservation on an as needed basis (Ludi, 2018). At the Tribe’s discretion, Suburban Propane or a similar propane delivery provider would serve the Proposed Project. Electrical service is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), with back-up power provided by on-site diesel generators.


Solid Waste

Solid waste would continue to be transported by Ponderosa Solid Waste to the American Avenue landfill via a private contract for solid waste transport. The Tribe would comply with federal regulations applicable to the Proposed Project, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As noted above in Section 3.5.3, the reduction of the amount of solid waste disposed to landfills is also required as mitigation to reduce the GHG emissions of the Proposed Project. The amount of solid waste generated by the Proposed Project was estimated based on generation rates provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). As shown in Table 3-25, the increase in solid waste generated due to the Proposed Project is estimated to be 3,710 pounds per day (approximately 1.86 tons per day). The mitigation measure provided below requires a reduction of 50 percent in solid waste disposal (in compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act); therefore, the total amount of waste generated by the Proposed Project is estimated at 1,855 pounds per day (approximately 0.93 tons per day). Assuming an increase of 0.93 tons of waste per day, this represents an approximately 0.042 percent increase in the yearly intake at the landfill, which would reduce the closure date by approximately one month. The Proposed Project would not cause the landfill to exceed the permitted average daily capacity. Therefore, the American Avenue Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs.

TABLE 3-25 NET INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE GENERATION

Land Use Generation Rate Units of Measure Proposed Rooms/

Seats/Square Footages Daily Generated Waste

Casino1 3.12 lb/100 sf/day 58,892 sf 1,837 lb/day

Hotel 2.0 lb/room/day 151 rooms 302 lb/day

Restaurant 1.0 lb/seat/day 513 seats 513 lb/day

Other Uses2 3.12 lb/100 sf/day 33,899 sf 1,058 lb/day

Total 3,710 lb/day

Total (tons/day) 1.86 tons/day Notes: 1 – This use includes the casino and bingo hall. 2 – This use includes the special event venue, child care center, meeting rooms, and retail. Source: CalRecycle, 2017b.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Gas and Electricity

Similar to the existing casino, propane gas would be utilized under the Proposed Project to fuel new boilers and water to water heat exchangers. Operation of the Proposed Project would increase the demand for propane gas. The Tribe would continue to contract with Suburban Propane to refill propane tanks. The Proposed Project would be designed to meet or exceed the standards of Title 24 of the CCR, which sets minimum efficiency requirements for building construction materials and energy-consuming equipment in California. The Proposed Project would increase peak electrical energy demand from operation of the Casino-hotel from approximately 3 megawatts (MW) to 5 MW (a 2-MW increase) (Hoogerhyde, 2017). The Tribe is currently engaged in discussions with PG&E related to infrastructure improvements that could be needed to serve the increase in electricity demand associated with the Proposed Project. At this time, no off-site infrastructure improvement requirements have been identified by PG&E. In the unlikely event that upgrades to off-site facilities, such as substations are necessary, these improvements would likely occur in previously disturbed areas and would be subject to environmental review. Because the project site and vicinity is already served by PG&E, any improvements required by the Proposed Project would take the form of augmentations to existing PG&E infrastructure and would not require the construction of new facilities on undisturbed land. As discussed in Section 2.2, the current overhead PG&E lines within the project site would be relocated underground within the future right-of-way of Millerton Road. The underground service would first be constructed and placed, and once the underground lines are connected and providing service the overhead lines and power poles would be removed. Thus, there would be minimal, if any, disruption in electrical service. Off-Reservation impacts regarding gas and electrical services would be less than significant.

Cumulative

Solid Waste

Growth resulting from buildout of the County General Plan would increase disposal of solid waste to the American Avenue Landfill. Projected solid waste generation for the Proposed Project is a small addition to the waste stream and would not significantly decrease the life expectancy of the disposal site and landfills. Further, new development would pay appropriate monthly service fees, allowing for maintenance of the landfill. As capacity is available for cumulative growth, including the Proposed Project, no significant cumulative effects to solid waste services would occur.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Gas and Electricity

Individual projects would be responsible for paying development or user fees to receive electric and natural gas services. As such, the Tribe would pay a fair share of the upgrades needed to avoid affecting the service of existing customers and any infrastructure necessary to provide service to the project site. The Proposed Project would not cause significant cumulative effects to energy or natural gas providers.

3.10.3 MITIGATION

Solid Waste

The Tribe shall recycle at least 50 percent of solid waste generated by the Proposed Project to ensure that the Proposed Project does not impede the ability of the County’s solid waste facilities to meet solid waste reductions required by State law.

Gas and Electricity


3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS


Population

In 2016, the population of the County was 979,915 people, approximately 351,307 of which resided in unincorporated areas of the County. The City of Fresno is the largest city within the County, with a population of 522,021 in 2016 (US Census, 2016a).

Housing

In 2016, there were approximately 327,812 total housing units within the County, with approximately 157,899 housing units within unincorporated areas of the County. Of these, approximately 27,961 housing units within the County (7.5 percent) and approximately 10,614 units within the City of Fresno (6.0 percent) were vacant (US Census, 2016b).

Employment

Approximately 433,716 people comprise the County labor force, of which approximately 364,464 people were employed and 69,252 people were unemployed as of 2016 (9.5 percent unemployment). In 2016, the City of Fresno’s labor force included approximately 237,426 citizens. The median household income in the County is approximately $48,715, while the City of Fresno’s median household income is approximately $44,905. (US Census, 2016c)

3.0 Impact Analysis


Property Taxes

The project site is currently held in trust for the Tribe by the federal government. As such, the project site is not subject to property taxes.


The Proposed Project would have a positive impact on current socioeconomic conditions within the area to a greater degree than the current impact of the existing operations at the project site. New jobs for members of the Tribe, as well as jobs for non-tribal members, would be created by the Proposed Project. The revenues generated by the Proposed Project could be used by the Tribe to improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe, as described in Section 1.3.

Fiscal Analysis

There is a common misconception that operations on land held in trust do not generate fiscal benefits beyond tribal governments. This is because tribes, as sovereign governments, do not pay corporate income taxes on revenue or property taxes on tribal land; tribal members that both live and work on a Reservation do not pay state income taxes; and state and/or local sales/excise taxes are not collected on purchases by tribal members on reservations. However, taxes are paid in all other circumstances, including: purchases made by non-tribal members, income taxes paid by non-tribal members or members that live off of the Reservation, and all indirect and induced activity generated during operation. As such, federal, state, and local governments typically experience substantial fiscal benefits from tribal business operations. As stated in Section 3.11.1 above, the project site is already held in trust by the federal government; as such, no property tax loss would occur with the project. The Proposed Project would generate beneficial off-Reservation fiscal impacts.

Crime

The Proposed Project would introduce an increased number of patrons and employees into the community on a daily basis. As a result, criminal incidents may increase in the project area, particularly at the project site, as with any other development of this size. However, increased tax revenues resulting from the Proposed Project would assist in off-setting the cost for increased demand for law enforcement services. Additionally, the TMPD (located along Sky Harbour Road north of the existing casino) provides law enforcement services on the Tribe’s Reservation, including the project site. The Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with crime.

Cumulative / Growth Inducing

Development of the Proposed Project would result in one-time employment opportunities from construction and permanent employment opportunities from operation. These opportunities would result from direct as well as indirect and induced effects. Construction employment opportunities would be temporary in nature, and would not be anticipated to result in the permanent relocation of employees into

3.0 Impact Analysis


the County. Operational employment opportunities would potentially include employees that relocate to the project area from outside of the County; however, the majority of positions are anticipated to be filled with people already residing within the region and would, therefore, not require new housing. As discussed in Section 3.11.1, as of 2016, approximately 27,961 housing units (7.5 percent) were vacant within the County, and approximately 10,614 units (6.0 percent) were vacant within the City of Fresno (US Census, 2016b). As such, there are anticipated to be more than enough vacant homes to support any potential impacts to the regional labor market under the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is not expected to stimulate regional housing development that would result in significant adverse off-Reservation effects. The potential for commercial growth resulting from the development of the Proposed Project would result from fiscal output generated throughout the County. Regional businesses would experience indirect economic growth as a result of expenditures by the Proposed Project on goods and services at off-site businesses. In addition, employees from the Proposed Project would generate induced economic output through expenditures of employee wages at local businesses. Indirect and induced economic output could stimulate further commercial growth in the region; however, such demand would be diffused and distributed among a variety of different sectors and businesses throughout the County. As such, significant regional commercial growth would not be anticipated to occur. Development in the County or nearby cities within the County would be subject to the constraints of their general plans, local ordinances, and other planning documents. New projects resulting from any induced effect would be subject to appropriate project-level environmental analysis. As discussed above, the minimal amount of commercial growth that may be induced by the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse off-Reservation environmental effects.

3.11.3 MITIGATION


3.12 INDIRECT IMPACTS OF MITIGATION

The implementation of traffic mitigation, as described in Section 3.9.3, as well as the construction of proposed access intersections along Millerton Road, would result in indirect off-Reservation impacts as described below. Off-site traffic mitigation improvements are conceptual at this time. Design and construction plans would be prepared after approval of this EE. As described in Table 3-24, the following traffic mitigation improvements are recommended at intersections and roadway segments along Millerton Road: North Fork Road and Friant Road – widen all approaches (recommended under Near-term and

Cumulative Conditions);

3.0 Impact Analysis


Millerton Road and Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road – signalize and widen all except northbound approaches (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions);

Millerton Road and Brighton Crest Drive – signalize and widen eastbound approach (recommended under Existing, Near-term, and Cumulative Conditions) and widen westbound approach (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions);

Millerton Road and Auberry Road – signalize (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions) and widen southbound approach (recommended under Near-term Conditions);

Friant Road and Willow Avenue – signalize and widen northbound and southbound approaches (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions);

Copper Avenue and Willow Avenue – signalize and widen all approaches (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions);

Millerton Road and Project Driveway #2 (secondary project access) – widen westbound approach (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions);

Millerton Road between North Fork Road and Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road – increase the number of eastbound and westbound travel lanes (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions);

Millerton Road between Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road and Brighton Crest Drive – increase the number of eastbound and westbound travel lanes (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions);

Millerton Road between Sky Harbour Boulevard and Table Mountain Road – increase the number of westbound travel lanes (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions); and

Millerton Road between Table Mountain Road and Auberry Road – increase the number of westbound travel lanes (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions).

Improvements along Millerton Road roadway segments and intersections have previously been subject to environmental review in the following documents which are incorporated by reference: Millerton Road Widening Project, Biological Assessment (BA), County of Fresno, December

2010, Revised September 2013 (Fresno County, 2013a); Formal Consultation for the Millerton Road Widening Project, Fresno County, California,

Biological Opinion (BO), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), October 2013 (USFWS, 2013);

Millerton Road Widening Project, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), County of Fresno, December 2013 (Fresno County, 2013b and 2013c);

Millerton Road Widening Project, Final EA (EA-09-009) and FONSI (FONSI-09-009), United States Bureau of Reclamation, May 2017 (USBR, 2017a and 2017b);

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Section 106 Concurrence, November 2015 (SHPO, 2015); and

3.0 Impact Analysis


United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14, December 2014 (USACE, 2014).

The recommended traffic mitigation in these areas would not result in significant additional environmental effects beyond those addressed in the environmental documents, permits, and associated mitigation plans listed above. Additionally, the following traffic mitigations and improvements are recommended at locations not previously addressed within the Millerton Road Widening Project environmental documents: North Fork Road and Friant Road – widen all approaches (recommended under Near-term and

Cumulative Conditions); Millerton Road and Auberry Road – signalize (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative

Conditions) and widen southbound approach (recommended under Near-term Conditions); Millerton Road between North Fork Road and Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road – increase the

number of eastbound and westbound travel lanes for a total of six lanes (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions); and

Millerton Road between Table Mountain Road and Auberry Road – increase the number of westbound travel lanes to two lanes (recommended under Near-term and Cumulative Conditions).

The following section identifies the potential indirect environmental effects of construction of off-site traffic mitigation improvements. Off-site projects would require obtaining approvals and permits from the County and may be subject to CEQA, which requires additional environmental review prior to approval. Implementation of permitting and CEQA requirements would further reduce the potential for significant adverse impacts from off-site traffic mitigation.

3.12.1 AESTHETICS

Visual effects would occur as the result of modification and expansion of existing roadways. However, because the improvements would occur to existing, previously developed roadways (versus the construction of new roadways in previously undeveloped areas), changes to the visual setting would not be significant. Intersection improvements would conform to the applicable County design standards. Aesthetic impacts resulting from construction of traffic mitigation would be less than significant.

3.12.2 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Development of roadway improvements would result in short term, construction-related air pollutant emissions. Construction would produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of demolition and soil movement. Construction of improvements would be limited in scope and duration. The limited nature of roadway improvement construction activities combined with adherence to the SJVAPCD rules and regulations would result in less-than-significant indirect effects to air quality. Construction of traffic mitigation

3.0 Impact Analysis


improvements would be much less extensive than the Proposed Project; correspondingly, GHG emissions would be lesser. Given the limited and temporary nature of roadway improvement construction activities, GHG emissions would be less than significant. Operational effects would occur if the roadway or utility improvements resulted in localized increases in CO concentrations or if the improvements contributed to traffic congestion at large intersections. However, it is expected that the roadway improvements described in Section 3.9.3 would reduce congestion and improve traffic flow. With the improved circulation resulting from traffic mitigation, LOS would be improved, thereby reducing idling time and associated vehicle emissions. The operational effects to air quality from roadway improvements would be less than significant.

3.12.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The construction of traffic mitigation and utility improvements would require grading and the introduction of fill material to extend existing road shoulders and roadbed. Potential impacts include physical impacts to the transportation network from geological hazards and increased potential for soil erosion due to the increase of impervious surfaces and additional earthwork needed to construct the improvements. Stable fill material, engineered embankments, and erosion control features would be used to reduce the potential for slope instability and erosion in accordance with roadway construction requirements imposed by local jurisdictional agencies, such as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the County. In accordance with the CWA, any construction of roadway or utility improvements over one acre in area would be required to comply with the NPDES permit program. A SWPPP would be developed, including soil erosion and sediment control practices to reduce the amount of exposed soil, prevent runoff from flowing across disturbed areas, slow runoff from the site, and remove sediment from the runoff. With standard construction practices and specifications required by the jurisdictional agencies and the NPDES Permit, as well as BMPs and mitigation included in Section 3.4.3, there would be no adverse effects to geology and soils as a result of off-site traffic mitigation improvements.

3.12.4 WATER RESOURCES

Construction of traffic mitigation improvements could increase impervious surfaces and modify drainage patterns. Potential effects include an increase in runoff and erosion, which could cause localized flooding and adversely affect surface water quality due to increases in sediment and roadway pollutants such as grease and oil. As discussed above, construction of improvements that exceed one acre of land would be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit Program, including the development of a SWPPP

3.0 Impact Analysis


that would include soil erosion and sediment control practices to reduce the amount of exposed soil, prevent runoff from flowing across disturbed areas, slow runoff from the site, and remove sediment from the runoff. Curbs, gutters, inlets, and other drainage facilities would be constructed to meet the standards of local jurisdictional agencies and provide adequate facilities to direct stormwater runoff. With incorporation of these drainage features and compliance with the soil erosion and sediment control practices identified in the SWPPP, as well as erosion control mitigation and construction BMPs included in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.6.3, effects to water resources would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no significant indirect effects to water resources as a result of off-site traffic mitigation and utility improvements.

3.12.5 NOISE

Construction of roadway improvements would result in short-term increases to local ambient noise levels. Because construction activities are expected to occur during normal daytime hours and the closest receptors are businesses, significant adverse effects to the ambient noise environment would not occur. Implementation of roadway improvements would not result in significant adverse indirect effects associated with noise.

3.12.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

Traffic improvements may require relocation of utilities near existing roadways, including overhead electricity lines and telecommunication lines. Relocation of these lines could result in a temporary break in service to some homes and businesses in the area. However, because these effects are common when upgrading and maintaining utility services, and because potential service breaks would be temporary, these effects are considered less than significant. No effects to police, fire, or emergency medical services are expected, as access to homes and businesses would be maintained during the construction period. Therefore, there would be no indirect effects to public services as a result of off-site traffic mitigation.

3.12.7 TRANSPORTATION

Construction of off-site improvements would result in short term inconveniences and minor delays due to constricted traffic movements. The intersection improvements are not expected to result in long term disruptions of access to surrounding land uses. If construction activities would require temporary lane closures to accommodate construction equipment, a traffic management plan would be prepared in accordance with the jurisdictional agency requirements, thus avoiding potentially adverse temporary effects.

3.0 Impact Analysis


3.12.8 SOCIOECONOMICS

Roadway improvements would result in short term disturbances to traffic flow and minor delays due to constricted traffic movement. Nearby businesses and residences would remain accessible throughout construction. The area of roadway impacts would be of a limited size and would not create negative socioeconomic effects. The improvements would not result in long term disruption of access to surrounding land uses or to minority or low-income populations. The Tribe would be responsible for pro rata share payments to fund the proposed improvements. Therefore, no significant indirect effects to socioeconomic conditions would occur as a result of off-site traffic mitigation improvements.

3.12.9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Under existing plus project conditions, traffic intersection improvements would only be required at three intersections (Millerton Road/Marina Drive-Winchell Cove Road, Millerton Road/Brighton Crest Drive, and Friant Road/Willow Avenue). The recommended improvements are consistent with the County’s previously proposed plans for these intersections, and have previously undergone environmental review in conjunction with the County’s road improvement projects. Impacts have been addressed and mitigated through the County’s MMRP. After implementation of the County’s mitigation, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. Construction of the roadway improvements required under cumulative conditions would result in loss of some existing ruderal vegetation and/or modification of drainage channels or roadside ditches. Most of the habitats that exists in the areas of proposed roadway improvements are highly disturbed and consist of paved areas, compacted dirt or graveled road shoulders, and ornamental or weedy vegetation. Due to the degraded condition of the roadside areas, habitat quality is generally low, and it is unlikely that construction of the roadway or utility improvements would result in any adverse effects to sensitive plant or animal species. Prior to construction, surveys for special status species, nesting migratory birds and sensitive habitats such as riparian and wetlands would be conducted in accordance with CEQA. The County would develop site-specific mitigation measures, such as the establishment of buffer areas, and the County would acquire any necessary permits for impacts to waterways and wetlands in accordance with regulatory requirements. Compliance with CEQA and adherence to regulatory requirements that protect special status species, nesting birds, and Waters of the U.S. would ensure that impacts to biological resources from construction of traffic mitigation and utility improvements would be less than significant.

3.12.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The construction of roadway improvements has the potential to disturb archaeological resources. Grading roadsides to add traffic lanes may disturb previously unknown sites. Due to prior grading of the existing roadways and occasional traffic on roadsides it is likely that resources remaining in these areas would be highly disturbed and lack integrity, thus diminishing their significance.

3.0 Impact Analysis


Potential off-site improvement projects would be subject to the protection of cultural resources afforded by the CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 and related provisions of the Public Resources Code. The lead agency under CEQA would be required to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level or to issue a finding of fact and statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts could not be mitigated. Mitigation may include the avoidance of resources; the preservation of key historical features; or the removal, documentation, and curation of cultural resources. Therefore, with the implementation of measures that the County would be required to implement per CEQA Guidelines, a less-than-significant indirect effect to cultural resources would result.

4.0 REPORT PREPARATION


SECTION 4.0 REPORT PREPARATION

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CONSULTANTS

ANALYTICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Principal in Charge: David Zweig, P.E.

Project Director: Ryan Sawyer, AICP

Project Manager: Bibiana Alvarez

Technical Staff: Aileen Mahoney

Ryan Gallagher

Nick Bonzey

Amanda Meroux

Dana Hirschberg

Glenn Mayfield

HYDROSCIENCE ENGINEERS, INC. – WATER AND WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

Curtis Lam

Alex Park

VRPA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. – TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

Jason Ellard

5.0 REFERENCES


SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guideline, 2010.

Available online at:

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CE

QA%20Guidelines_May%202011_5_3_11.ashx. Accessed on April 26, 2018.

Beckham, Lisa. 2018. Tribal Minor New Source Review – PTE Calculations for Emergency Generators.

Personal Communication. April 24, 2018.

Berger, Elliot, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. 2015. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database

Version 1.8. Available online at: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/888553O/noise-

navigator-sound-level-hearing-protection-database.pdf. Accessed August 2017.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2007. Deputation Agreement Between Office of Law Enforcement

Services and Security and the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribal Police Department. August 20,

2007.

California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October 2007.

Available online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea_final_report.pdf. Accessed

November 3, 2017.

CARB. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008. Available online at:

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed

November 3, 2017.

CARB. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4, 2016. Available online at:

https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2017.

CARB. 2017a. Area Designation Maps / State and National. October 18, 2017. Available online at:

https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed October 31, 2017.

CARB. 2017b. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Invetory – 2017 Edition. June 6, 2017. Available

online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data/htm. Accessed April 26, 2018.

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_May%202011_5_3_11.ashx

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_May%202011_5_3_11.ashx

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/888553O/noise-navigator-sound-level-hearing-protection-database.pdf

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/888553O/noise-navigator-sound-level-hearing-protection-database.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea_final_report.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data/htm

5.0 References


CARB. 2017c. San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management Plans. August 25, 2017. Available online

at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/sanjqnvllysip.htm. Accessed May 18, 2018.

CARB. 2018. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. Select 8 Summary. Available online at:

https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Accessed May 18, 2018.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2010. CAPCOA Quantifying

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, 2010. Available online at; http://www.capcoa.org/wp-

content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf. Accessed on April 26,

2018.

California Department of Forestry and Fire (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA.

Available online at: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/fresno/fhszs_map.10.pdf. Accessed

October 31, 2017.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2017a. Facility/Site

Summary Details: American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Available online at:

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/10-AA-0009/Detail/. Accessed November

3, 2017.

CalRecycle. 2017b. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available online at:

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed November 6,

2017.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2017a. California Scenic Highway Mapping System:

Fresno County. Available online at:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed October 30,

2017.

Caltrans. 2017b. Water Quality Planning Tool. Available online at:

http://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wqpt/wqpt.aspx. Accessed October 31, 2017.

California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 2015. SHPO Section 106 Concurrence on the

Millerton Road Widening Project. November 2015.

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water

Quality Limited Segments. Available online at:

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/category5_rep

ort.shtml. Accessed March 23, 2018.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/sanjqnvllysip.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/

http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf

http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf

http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/fresno/fhszs_map.10.pdf

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/10-AA-0009/Detail/

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/

http://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wqpt/wqpt.aspx

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/category5_report.shtml


5.0 References


Climate Action Team (CAT). 2007. Climate Action Team Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate

Change in California. Available online at:

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2007-04-20_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

Accessed November 3, 2017.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies

on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National

Environmental Policy Act Reviews. August 1, 2016. Available online at:

https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf. Accessed

April 26, 2018.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06019C1035H.

February 18, 2009. Available online at:

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=friant%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor.

Accessed November 1, 2017.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. Available online at:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook08.cfm.

Accessed October 31, 2017.

FHWA. 2010. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. Available online at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_

guidance/revguidance.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2017.

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport

Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992. Available online at:

http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References/1992_08_Federal_Interagency_Commit

tee_on_Noise.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2017.

Fresno County. 2000. 2000 Fresno County General Plan. Available online at:

http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-

planning/development-services-division/planning-and-land-use/general-plan-maps. Accessed

October 30, 2017.

Fresno County. 2010. Bicycle Master Plan. November 2010. Available online at

http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-

planning/design-division/bicycle-master-plan. Accessed November 14, 2017.

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2007-04-20_CAT_REPORT.PDF

https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=friant%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook08.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/revguidance.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/revguidance.pdf

http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References/1992_08_Federal_Interagency_Committee_on_Noise.pdf

http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References/1992_08_Federal_Interagency_Committee_on_Noise.pdf

http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-planning/development-services-division/planning-and-land-use/general-plan-maps

http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-planning/development-services-division/planning-and-land-use/general-plan-maps

http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-planning/design-division/bicycle-master-plan

http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-planning/design-division/bicycle-master-plan

5.0 References


Fresno County. 2013a. Millerton Road Widening Project Biological Assessment. December 2010,

revised September 2013.

Fresno County. 2013b. Millerton Road Widening Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

December 2013.

Fresno County. 2013c. Millerton Road Widening Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.

December 2013.

Fresno County Fire Protection District (FCFPD). 2012. FCFPD 2008-2012 Strategic Plan. Available

online at: https://www.fresnocountyfire.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/04/fco_strategic_plan_3.14.08-master_copy-kla-with_signatures.pdf.

Accessed October 31, 2017.

FCFPD. 2017. District Operations. Available online at: https://www.fresnocountyfire.org/stations-and-

functions/. Accessed October 31, 2017.

FCFPD. 2018. Personal communication between AES (Aileen Mahoney) and FCFPD Millerton Station

employee. May 1, 2018.

Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA). 2017. Services Map. January 18, 2017. Available

online at: http://www.ruraltransit.org/. Accessed November 13, 2017.

Fresno County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO). 2016. 2016 Annual Report. Available online at:

https://www.fresnosheriff.org/publicdocs/PDF/jtuydq1kp2zhztssujuf0cei/1/2016%20FCSO%20Y

ear%20End%20Report.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2018.

FCSO. 2017. Patrol Areas. Available online at: https://www.fresnosheriff.org/units/enforcement/patrol-

areas.html. Accessed October 21, 2017.

Hoogerhyde, Cindy. 2017. Personal communication between PG&E (Cindy Hoogerhyde) and TMR

(Leonard Lude). June 27, 2017.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2014. Santana Row Parking Structure Project Noise Assessment – San Jose,

California. June 2, 2014. Available online at:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41533. Accessed August 2017.

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science

Basis. Available online at:

https://www.fresnocountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fco_strategic_plan_3.14.08-master_copy-kla-with_signatures.pdf

https://www.fresnocountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fco_strategic_plan_3.14.08-master_copy-kla-with_signatures.pdf

https://www.fresnocountyfire.org/stations-and-functions/

https://www.fresnocountyfire.org/stations-and-functions/

http://www.ruraltransit.org/

https://www.fresnosheriff.org/publicdocs/PDF/jtuydq1kp2zhztssujuf0cei/1/2016%20FCSO%20Year%20End%20Report.pdf

https://www.fresnosheriff.org/publicdocs/PDF/jtuydq1kp2zhztssujuf0cei/1/2016%20FCSO%20Year%20End%20Report.pdf

https://www.fresnosheriff.org/units/enforcement/patrol-areas.html

https://www.fresnosheriff.org/units/enforcement/patrol-areas.html

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41533

5.0 References


http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed

October 31, 2017.

j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. (j.c. brennan). 2010. Environmental Noise Assessment. November 3,

2010. Available online at:

https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/envcoordsvcs/eir/timberline.

Accessed August 22, 2017.

JCJ Architecture (JCJ). 2017. Table Mountain Casino Program Summary. December 13, 2017.

Karst, Angela M. 2018. Personal communication between AES (Bibiana Alvarez) and Table Mountain

Rancheria (Angela Karst) regarding calls for service to the existing Casino. May 2, 2018.

Ludi, Leonard. 2018. Personal communication between AES (Bibiana Alvarez) and Table Mountain

Casino (Leonard Ludi) on April 27, 2018.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey: Custom Soil Resource Report

for Eastern Fresno Area, California: TMR 238-Acre Site. Available online at:

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed November 2, 2017.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (PPCG). 2014. Southern Sierra Integrated Regional Water

Management Plan. November 2014. Available online at:

http://www.southernsierrarwmg.org/uploads/7/4/7/8/74782677/southern_sierra_irwmp_final_201

4-06-15.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2017.

Ray, Dan. 2017. Personal communication between AES (Ryan Sawyer) and Table Mountain Casino

(Dan Ray) on October 24, 2017.

Rodriguez, Richard. 2014. Personal communication between AES (Alison Middlekauf) and Table

Mountain Rancheria (Richard Rodriguez) on May 16, 2014.

San Diego County Department of Public Works (SDCDPW). 2003. Traffic Needs Assessment of Tribal

development Projects in the San Diego Region – March 2003 Update.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of

Significance – Criteria Pollutants. March 19, 2015. Available online at:

http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-

Significance.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2018.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/envcoordsvcs/eir/timberline

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm

http://www.southernsierrarwmg.org/uploads/7/4/7/8/74782677/southern_sierra_irwmp_final_2014-06-15.pdf

http://www.southernsierrarwmg.org/uploads/7/4/7/8/74782677/southern_sierra_irwmp_final_2014-06-15.pdf

http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf

http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf

5.0 References


SJVAPCD. 2018. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Valley Attainment Status. Available online at:

https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed March 23, 2018.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011. 2010 California 303(d) List of Water Quality

Limited Segments. Available online at:

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/category5_rep

ort.shtml. Accessed March 28, 2018.

Table Mountain Casino (TMC). 2017. Bus Service. Available online at: http://www.tmcasino.com/bus-

service.htm. Accessed November 14, 2017.

Table Mountain Rancheria (TMR). 2004. Table Mountain Rancheria Water Quality Assessment Report

Under CWA 305(b). NRCE, Inc. Oakland, CA. August 9, 2004.

TMR. 2005. Preserving the Environment for Future Generations: A Solid Waste Management Plan.

February 2005.

TMR. 2017. Total Water Usage 2017-2018.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. Nationwide Permit 14 Authorization for the

Millerton Road Widening Project. December 2014.

United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2015. Finding of No Significant Impact: Flyin’ J Ranch

5-year Warren Act Contract for Conveyance and Storage of Groundwater within Friant Division

Facilities. March 2015

USBR. 2016. Final Environmental Assessment: Table Mountain Rancheria as Recipient for the Madera

Irrigation District and Flyin’ J Contracts. August 2016.

US Census. 2016a. American Fact Finder: Total Population: 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year

Estimates. Table B01003. Available online at:

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/guided_search.xhtml. Accessed October 30,

2017.

US Census. 2016b. American Fact Finder: Comparative Housing Characteristics: 2016 American

Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Table CP04. Available online at:


2017.

https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm



http://www.tmcasino.com/bus-service.htm

http://www.tmcasino.com/bus-service.htm

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/guided_search.xhtml


5.0 References


US Census. 2016c. American Fact Finder: Comparative Economic Characteristics: 2016 American

Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Table CP03. Available online at:


2017.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2015. Final Environmental

Assessment – Flyin’ J Ranch 5-year Warren Act Contract for Conveyance and Storage of

Groundwater within Friant Division Facilities. Available online at:

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=21201. Accessed March

19, 2018.

USBR. 2016. Final Environmental Assessment – Table Mountain Rancheria as Recipient for the Madera

Irrigation District and Flyin’ J Contracts (EA-16-007). Available online at:

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=26697. Accessed March

19, 2018.

USBR. 2017a. Final Environmental Assessment – Millerton Road Widening Project (EA-09-009). May

2017.

USBR. 2017b. Finding of No Significant Impact – Millerton Road Widening Project (FONSI-09-009).

May 2017.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Fact Sheet. June 2010.

USEPA. 2014. Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 44. March 8, 2010. Available online at:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-08/pdf/2010-4823.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2018.

USEPA. 2015. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Fact Sheet. June 2015.

Available online at: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/npdes/pdf/ca/tribal/ca0084280-table-

mountain-factsheet-2015.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2017.

USEPA. 2018b. ICIS-NPDES Permit Limit and Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Data Sets.

Available online at: https://echo.epa.gov/tools/data-downloads/icis-npdes-dmr-and-limit-data-set.

Accessed April 25, 2018.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Formal Consultation for the Millerton Road

Widening Project, Fresno County, California, Biological Opinion. October 2013.


https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=21201

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=26697

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-08/pdf/2010-4823.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/npdes/pdf/ca/tribal/ca0084280-table-mountain-factsheet-2015.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/npdes/pdf/ca/tribal/ca0084280-table-mountain-factsheet-2015.pdf

https://echo.epa.gov/tools/data-downloads/icis-npdes-dmr-and-limit-data-set

5.0 References


WRCC. 2013. Fresno California Climate Data Summary. Available online at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-

bin/clilcd.pl?ca93193. Accessed April 26, 2018.

https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca93193

https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca93193

TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA CASINO RELOCATION …1.0 Introduction May 2018 1-2 Table Mountain Rancheria...

Documents

Transcript of TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA CASINO RELOCATION …1.0 Introduction May 2018 1-2 Table Mountain Rancheria...